Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, if it were not so serious, it would be funny. The Republican Party, the party that never believed in Social Security, is now posing as its savior. They say Democrats are raiding Social Security, running ads that we are stealing from Social Security. It is a joke. First, the Republican budget has already spent about $17 billion in the Social Security surplus. All the experts and accountants agree. They have done what they accuse the Democrats of doing. Second, this entire debate is a hoax, and they know it. When one puts one's money into a savings account, does one think it just sits there? No. The bank uses one's money and pays one interest. That is not stealing. It is the same with Social Security. The trust fund is either used for programs or to pay down the debt. Interest is paid back in the fund. The Republicans are desperately trying to cover up the fact that, unlike the Democrats, they have no plan to extend the life of Social Security, and that is the ugly truth.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, families in America are facing a housing crisis. Unfortunately, at a time of unprecedented economic growth and record unemployment, many are a paycheck away from losing their home. A report released by Catholic Charities confirms that sad truth. Cardinal Francis George, the Catholic Archbishop of Chicago, has sounded the alarm that, despite being in the midst of an economic boom, the housing needs of low-income families in Chicago and Illinois are unmet. The report found that 245,000 low-income renters in the Chicago area are competing for 155,000 apartments with affordable rent. More disturbing, the report also found that most of those earning minimum wage spend more than two-thirds of their income on rent. Using the phrase ``housing crisis'' too often may blunt its effectiveness, but there is no other way to describe what is happening in our cities and communities. Sadly though, no matter how many times we say it on the House floor, in committee hearings, in community meetings with our constituents and local elected officials, and in news conferences, there are some that choose to turn a deaf ear. That is why I submit this Chicago Tribune editorial describing the efforts of Cardinal George on behalf of families in Chicago and Illinois. I am hopeful that in addition to his voice, we can break through and find a permanent solution to the housing needs of all families. The Cardinal Leads on Housing Unemployment is below 5 percent, new housing starts are at record levels and nearly two-thirds of American families now live in their own homes. So what's all this talk about a housing crisis? It's not just talk. It's a growing reality for millions of low- and middle-income working families. For them, the recent boom at the top has meant fewer rooms at the bottom. To some this may sound like left-liberal cant. (Has there ever not been a crisis in affordable housing?) But the problem will not be so easily dismissed now that it has been described at length by Cardinal Francis George, the Catholic archbishop of Chicago. By placing his personal stamp on a new report by Catholic Charities here, Cardinal George has sounded a wake-up call to those who thought the economic boom had solved the region's low-income housing squeeze. It has not. Using data from several official sources, the report estimates there are 245,00 low-income renters in the Chicago area competing for just 115,000 apartments with rents deemed ``affordable'' (less than 50 percent of a family's monthly income). Statewide, some 400,000 people are in families spending more than half their incomes on rent and utilities. Those earning just the minimum wage routinely spend more than three-quarters of their take-home pay on a typical two- bedroom apartment, leaving precious little for food and other necessities. Catholic Charities says its phone lines are buzzing with calls for emergency assistance and its homeless shelters are at capacity. Several factors are behind this pinch amid plenty. While low mortgage rates and generous tax deductions have fueled the upscale market, the economics of rental housing--for both landlord and tenant--remain lackluster by comparison. Then there's galloping gentrification, whereby close-in Chicago neighborhoods are redeveloped for wealthier professionals while less-affluent families go packing. Meanwhile, the Chicago Housing Authority is demolishing its dysfunctional high-rises and sending thousands of impoverished tenants into the private market armed with federal rent vouchers. Calling the housing squeeze a threat to family stability across the region, Cardinal George is urging action on several fronts. He wants Congress and the Illinois legislature to fully fund proven subsidized housing programs. He wants local municipalities--and not just Chicago--to redouble efforts to include affordable units in their housing mix. And importantly, he wants all Chicagoans, including landlords, to be more accepting of members of racial and cultural minorities moving into their neighborhoods. Good points all. Their implementation would extend the world's most productive housing market to families that have, so far, been untouched by its bounty.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today, for the second time this year, the House is considering H.R. 1175. This legislation, introduced by my distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Lantos, would help to locate Zachary Baumel, an American citizen and other Israeli soldiers missing in action since 1982. On June 22, 1999 the House sent a strong message by passing H.R. 1175 with 415 votes in support of the bill. Today, the House has a chance to pass this legislation--as amended by the Senate--and send it to the President for his signature. I believe that the Administration is concerned about the fate of these brave soldiers. However, it has been five years since the Gaza- Jericho agreement, and Zachary Baumel, Zvi Feldman, Yehuda Katz and others are still missing. Passage of this legislation will ensure that the Department of State raises this case on an urgent basis with all appropriate governments and authorities. Whenever American citizens or allies of the United States are taken during conflict, we must do everything possible to obtain their release or information as to their fate. My constituents agree. Over the past several months, I have received many letters and phone calls from individuals who are concerned about this issue, requesting that I do everything possible to ensure passage of this legislation. I urge all members to vote in support of this important measure.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for not only his leadership but his humanity, and for being a mentor to me on international and human rights issues in the short time that I have been a Member of Congress. I am honored and pleased to join my colleagues today in commending in this resolution Greece and Turkey in their mutual and prompt responses to earthquakes in both countries. On August 17, in the middle of the night, Turkey experienced an earthquake that claimed thousands of lives and destroyed thousands of buildings. For a country of any size, a tragic event like this one requires the help of the international community. Rescue workers from Greece were the first to respond to Turkey's urgent situation. On September 7, an earthquake occurred in Greece. The earthquake in Greece also caused numerous deaths and damage to property, and despite the strains of rebuilding after its own catastrophe, Turkey was the first country to react by sending rescue personnel and other resources. Both of these countries showed a real commitment to humanitarian values and to each other. When individuals were in need and the lives of millions of human beings were at stake, these two countries put aside their differences and without hesitation did their best to help each other through a difficult time. The prompt and generous support exchanged between these two longtime allies of the United States and NATO members led to a welcomed warming of relations that serves as a valuable lesson to the global community. It is important for the United States and the world to remain committed to helping Greece and Turkey through this difficult time of rebuilding. I look forward to doing so, and to witnessing continuing discussions between the Turkish and Greek governments to work out their remaining differences on other issues. Again, I commend our allies, Greece and Turkey, and I look forward to working with them in the years to come. I would also like to commend and offer thanks to my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the sponsor of this legislation, and the chairman and ranking Democratic Member of the Committee on International Relations for helping to bring this bill to the floor, and the other cosponsors of this legislation, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). Finally, I wish to extend my sincere condolences to the families of the victims of these two tragic events. I urge all Members to support this measure.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, as the world mourns the death of President Julius Nyerere, I wish to send the deepest condolences to the people of Tanzania. For many years, the world has come to know President Julius Nyerere as a pioneer for change. He was committed to his people and was a leader whose only ambition was to build a strong nation and a solid future for Africa. That is why he was a great statesman and a favored son of millions of Africans. President Nyerere fought for his nation's independence and was elected to lead Tanganyika in 1961. In 1964, President Nyerere peacefully united Tanganyika with the island of Zanzibar, forming the Republic of Tanzania. He served as the leader of that nation for nearly twenty-five years. A proud father of a post-colonial nation, he worked to translate that pride and success to all of Africa. All righteous people admired him, for he was a fearless pursuer of justice. He stood tall and spoke up against African strongmen and brutal dictators like Uganda's Idi Amin and the minority rule in South Africa. President Nyerere voluntarily stepped down in 1985. A world leader, he built a solid foundation for his nation so that it can peacefully grow and flourish. He returned to his modest farm, but remained a powerful voice for peace and a relentless ambassador for the needs of Africans and the African continent. He died at the age of 77 while trying to meditate an end to the war in Burundi. At the time of his death, President Nyerere was engaged in his favorite activity--finding a way to lead Africa on a journey of lasting prosperity and peace. For all he has given to his nation, his beloved continent and its people, and the world, I am certain that his legend will live on forever. Having had the good fortune to work with the 9th Congressional District African and Caribbean Advisory Committee, I know that his influence has been broadly felt and am hopeful that his spirit will guide us in the future.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce legislation to address the gaps, errors, and oversights in current law that impede the ability of battered immigrant women to flee violent relationships and survive economically. The Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 1999 would restore provisions that allow battered women, who are entitled to permanent residency, to file their own application for immigrant status without requiring the cooperation of their abusive spouses. It would also allow them to remain in the United States while awaiting their green cards. This legislation would also ensure that battered immigrants with pending immigration applications are able to access public benefits, food stamps, SSI, housing, work permits and immigration relief. October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and domestic violence has grown to epidemic proportions. It is the single largest cause of injury to women in the United States. It is in every neighborhood and community throughout our Nation. Domestic abuse does not discriminate. Rural and urban women of all religious, ethnic, economic, and educational backgrounds; of varying ages, physical abilities, and lifestyles can be affected by domestic violence. A woman's reasons for staying in an abusive relationship are more complex than a statement about her strength of character. In many cases, it is dangerous for a woman to leave her abuser. On average, a typical battered woman attempts to leave her abusive relationship five to seven times before she achieves permanent separation from her batterer. This pattern indicates that battered women often lack adequate independent living and employment options. We must take the next step toward creating real solutions to the continuing problem of domestic violence. We must help women and families achieve economic self- sufficiency so that they are able to escape their violent relationships and secure protection. Sadly though, in addition to the lack of adequate housing and employment options for many victims of domestic abuse, immigrant women and their children who suffer every day at the hands of abusers face one more threat--the threat of deportation. Battered women often experience shame, embarrassment and isolation. For immigrant women, who often have no family support and whose immigration status is tied to the abusers, it is even more difficult. In more ways than one, they are held hostage by their abusers. The bill would expand legal protections for battered immigrant women so that they may flee violent homes, obtain court protections, and cooperate in the criminal prosecution of their abusers without fear of deportation. It also ensures that women who are victims of terrible crimes, such as rape, incest, torture, battery, sexual assault, female genital mutilation, and forced prostitution, can remain temporarily in the United States. These women would then be able to apply for lawful permanent residency at a later date. Giving these victims this opportunity to remain in the U.S. is an important step in the efforts of law enforcement to protect the victims and prosecute and investigate cases of domestic abuse and trafficking of aliens. I'd like to share the story of ``Celeste'' to illustrate the dire need for this legislation. Celeste was born in Mexico. She met her husband, Ronaldo, a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 1991. They immediately began dating and fell in love. Four months later, they married, and Celeste moved with her husband to Chicago. For the first five months things went well. Celeste became pregnant, but soon after, things began to change. He suddenly became unpredictable and controlling. He began to abuse Celeste. Celeste feared for her safety and that of her son. Ronaldo had promised to file a visa petition for Celeste when she came to the United States, but then refused to keep his promise unless she paid him a lot of money. Celeste was left with only two choices: report the abuse to the police and face certain deportation or say nothing and live with the abuse. If this critical piece of legislation is passed, thousands of women around the country like Celeste will be able to leave their abusive spouses and petition for citizenship on their own. Additionally, they will be authorized to work and will have access to basic services like transitional housing and counseling to help them get on their feet. There is no reason to wait. We must act now to end the injustice, solve this problem, and help these women and their children. it is wrong to stand idly by as battered women and their children are forced to choose between a black eye and broken arm or a one-way ticket out of the country. I submit the following summary of the bill. Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 1999 The Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 1999 continues the work that began with the passage of the first Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994. Prior to VAWA 1994, abusive citizens and permanent residents had total control over their spouse's immigration status. As a result, battered immigrant women and children were forced to remain in abusive relationships, unable to appeal to law enforcement and courts for protection for fear of deportation. VAWA 1994 immigration provisions remedied the situation by allowing battered immigrants to file their own applications for immigration relief without the cooperation of their abusive spouse, enabling them to safely flee violence. Despite the successes of the immigration provisions of VAWA 194, subsequent legislation drastically reduced access to VAWA immigration relief for battered immigrant women and their children. This bill seeks to restore, improve implementation of and expand access to a variety of legal protections for battered immigrants so they may file violent homes, obtain court protection, cooperate in the criminal prosecution of their abusers, and take control of their lives without the fear of deportation. Under current law, many battered immigrants are forced to leave the US to obtain their lawful permanent residence. Leaving the US may put women at risk of violence from their abusers and would deny them the protection provided by courts, legislation, custody decrees, and law enforcement. This bill will allow battered immigrant women and children to obtain permanent immigration status without leaving the U.S. The Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act would: Allow for adjustment of status for VAWA self-petitioners, thus allowing women to remain in the U.S. while awaiting their green cards; Prevent changes in abuser's status from undermining victim's petitions; Provide for numerous waivers and exceptions to inadmissibility for VAWA eligible applicants; Improve access to VAWA for battered immigrant women who are married to members of the armed forces, married to bigamists, and victims of elder abuse; Allow for discretionary waivers for good moral character determinations; Give VAWA applicant access to work authorization; Protect certain crime victims including crimes against women; Allow VAWA applicants access to food stamps, SSI, housing and legal services; Train judges, immigration officials, armed forces supervisors and police on VAWA immigration provisions; Provide permanent immigration status for immigrant victims of elder abuse.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, many of us have gotten up and talked about our children and grandchildren, and I am going to follow suit. I have a beautiful, bright, intelligent, exceptionally talented granddaughter, 18 months old. Do I need to worry about her? Probably not. She gets a lot of attention from her mom. We are all going to be nurturing her and making sure that, at school, she gets the best attention and that she does just fine. But what we need to be doing today is looking beyond our own families. For anyone on this floor to get up and say we do not have a gender equity problem is not looking in the right places. All they have to do is look around here and see the small percentage of women, 11 percent of the Members of the United States Congress. I assure my colleagues that I did not grow up thinking that I could become a Member of the United States Congress. It was just not on the radar screen for girls. That is what we are talking about. How are we going to put on the radar screen for the more disadvantaged girls in this country the opportunity to do and be anything that they want to be? Do we have gender equity? Of course we do not. While educational opportunities for girls and young women have improved in some areas, many are not given the chance to learn the technology skills needed to compete in the 21st Century. Let me give my colleagues a few numbers here. Although experts predict that 65 percent of all jobs in the year 2010 will require technology skills, a very small percentage of girls choose to take computer science courses. They are probably not encouraged to do this. There may be subtle differences there. Their teachers need training to encourage them. When they do take those courses, they use them for word processing, the 1990s version of typing. Only 17 percent of students who take computer science advance placement tests are girls. Is that because 17 percent of the girls are smart enough? No. It is because 17 percent of the girls are all the ones that have been encouraged to do so. We need to make those numbers much, much higher; and we can. Then there is a very real economic component to the lack of gender equity in our classrooms. They carry that burden with them all through their lives. Women are still paid 75 cents on the average for every dollar that a man with the same qualifications doing the same job earns. Over a third of all families headed by women alone were below the poverty level. The training for women for low paying, traditional fields helps perpetuate the cycle of poverty and powerlessness for both women and their children. If we are truly committed to empowering young girls and young women and if we want to be able to stand up here at some point and say with truth that we no longer have a gender equity problem, then the least we can do today is support the Mink-Woolsey-Sanchez-Morella amendment which simply seeks to restore the gender equity provision that has been there for a long time in H.R. 2.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues on the Small Business Committee for their work on H.R. 1497, the Women's Business Center Sustainability Act of 1999. This legislation, before the House today will improve the Small Business Administration's Women's Business Center Program. The women's business center program has helped start and improve woman-owned businesses in my district and across the country. During my service on the Small Business Committee I heard two suggestions from women's business center directors: Make funds available to start women's business centers in every state, and allow women's business centers to re-compete for federal matching funds after their fifth year of existence. Today, with passage of H.R. 1497, we will authorize this program through the year 2001 and make women's business centers eligible for another five years of federal matching funds. Legislation from earlier this session increased fiscal year 2000 funding for the women's business center program by $3 million and ensured full funding in the fifth year of operation for women's business centers. Women-owned businesses contribute greatly to the American economy and represent the fastest growing type of American business. With passage of today's legislation and legislation from the Small Business Committee passed earlier this session, we have acknowledged the importance of woman-owned businesses and have made clear our commitment to their success. Support for the women's business center program translates into successful woman-owned businesses. I commend my colleagues for bringing this bill to the floor, I urge all members to vote in support, and I salute the Woman Business owners and women's business centers across the country.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor and strong supporter of H.R. 1180, the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. Access to health care is important to all of us. To persons with disabilities, it is critical. Unfortunately, current policies penalize those persons with disabilities who are able to work but, by doing so, lose access to Medicare and Medical coverage. The loss of health care is the major reason why persons with disabilities are locked out of the workplace. According to the report issued last fall by the President's Task Force on the Employment of Persons with Disabilities, ``(a)ccess to health care is accepted as the primary barrier to keeping people with disabilities outside the world of work.'' While 72 percent of persons with disabilities want to work and could be productive members of the community, the loss of health care coverage keeps them from doing so. H.R. 1180, as originally introduced, corrects this situation. It would allow persons with disabilities to return to work and retain access to a broad array of services. The bill before us today, however, is significantly different from H.R. 1180 as introduced. While I will support this version, I strongly urge the conferees to improve the Work Incentives Improvement in order to bring it closer to the provisions of the original bill. I am concerned that, despite last minute negotiations, the bill does not provide full funding to ensure that services will be available to Medicaid beneficiaries who return to work. Because this bill has been rushed to the floor with little chance for review and no chance for amendments, it has been difficult to analyze fully the impacts of those funding sources that have been identified. There are numerous ways to fully fund the Work Incentives Improvement Act without taking funding from other essential programs. I hope that the original provisions of H.R. 1180 will be restored in conference, and that we find funding sources that do not jeopardize critical health care programs such as school-based health care. I am also concerned that just as we are working to help persons with disabilities move into the workforce, the new 6.3 percent attorney tax will harm other persons with disabilities receive their Social Security benefits. Legal representation is critical in Social Security disability cases--it often makes the difference between whether a person receives or does not receive disability benefits. Taxing the attorneys who help persons with disabilities receive the benefits to which they are entitled may mean that those persons never receive their benefits. I believe that this is an unwise and dangerous provision, and I hope that the conferees will eliminate it from the final bill. We can act now to give persons with disabilities the opportunity to be productive members of their community. We can provide sufficient funding so that those who move into the workforce receive comprehensive, quality health care. And we can find this major initiative in a manner that is fair. I urge my colleagues to work for improvements in H.R. 1180 so that its full promise will be realized.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise to applaud the work of my colleagues in the House and the other body. Two months ago, the Committee on Appropriations reported out a House spending bill that cut $1 billion from critical housing programs. This was done while our Nation faces a dire crisis in housing. In Chicago alone, 35,000 families are on the waiting list for public housing; and, across the country, over 5 million households faced worst-case housing needs. Not only were these cuts proposed in the face of great need, but they were proposed in a time of great plenty. Our economy is in the middle of its strongest run ever, and the Federal Government is reporting budget surpluses. It hardly seemed like the time to cut critical investment in housing for seniors, families, and others on low and fixed incomes. Today, however, House and Senate conferees have improved that bill and are reporting a bill that actually increases spending for housing. There is over $400 million more than the President requested for public housing programs. Homeless assistance is increased $25 million over last year. The HOPWA program will receive $7 million more than last year. Housing for persons with disabilities will receive $5 million more than last year. Housing for our Nation's elderly will get $50 million more than last year, and the conferees funded 60,000 new rental vouchers for families to use in the private rental market. Moreover, the conference increased spending in economic development programs. These programs allow State and local governments to encourage business and create good-paying jobs. When the housing budget was first proposed late last summer, I and other colleagues in the House and people and organizations across the country rose in outrage. We ought to have fought cutting housing when we had so much while so many people had so little. But now, I am happy to rise and applaud the final product, which has done an about-face and increases investment in people by increasing our investment in their housing and jobs. I urge my colleagues to give a resounding vote in favor of this bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct conferees on the juvenile justice bill. A number of us on this side of the aisle came down several mornings in a row and read the names of young people that had died because of gun violence since Columbine. We read the names of the average of 13 children killed every day, a Columbine every day in this country, due to gun violence. We read their names, and we read their ages; 10-, 11-, 14-, 15-year-olds killed by gun violence since Columbine. Now the Members of the conference committee have an opportunity to respond to that, to say we are going to do something. Are we going to stop all the killing? No, we are not going to stop all the killing. Can we save some lives? Can we save some children from being on that list? We can do that. Millions of American families are counting on Congress to help end the cycle of violence that has taken the lives of too many children. We must have a juvenile justice bill that includes these modest, common sense gun safety measures that are so widely supported by the American people. The Senate passed these common sense gun safety provisions this year, and it would require the sale of child safety locks with each handgun. Who could possibly be opposed? We could prevent every single accidental shooting of children that pick up a handgun. Close the gun show sales loophole. Why not prevent criminals from getting handguns at gun shows? And ban the importation of large capacity ammunition clips. We, however, have failed to pass any gun safety measures this year. I urge, along with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the House negotiators to agree to the Senate's common sense gun safety measures, and I urge them to do it now. It is time to pass, past time to pass, sensible gun safety legislation to protect our children and safeguard our communities. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) for yielding me this time. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Michigan for her tireless work on this important issue and for organizing this discussion tonight and also to associate myself with the comments of my colleague from Illinois. Recently, I joined him some days ago, speaking out on the need to restore payments for hospitals, particularly those hospitals that serve a disproportionate number of uninsured and poorly insured patients, and those that train medical professionals. Unless we act now, Illinois hospitals and hospitals across the country will have insufficient resources to provide the quality and timely care that our constituents deserve. I also wanted to say that there was a recent report by George Washington University researchers Barbara Smith, Kathleen Maloy and Daniel Hawkins which provides a clear warning signal that home health services are also threatened by the cuts that the balanced budget amendment had. Three million acutely and chronically ill senior citizens and Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities are depending on home health care services. Hospital stays are getting shorter. More and more Medicare patients are being sent home with ongoing medical needs. In many cases, home health services, if available and appropriate, are cost effective substitutes for hospital and nursing home care. Despite the overwhelming and growing need for quality home services, the George Washington University study demonstrates that the interim payment system required by the balanced budget amendment is having adverse impacts. Because of cost constraints, the majority of home health agencies have already changed their case mix. They are looking for patients with less complex and less expensive problems, and they are avoiding patients that have more complicated and more expensive needs. In other words, those people who are most in need of home health services are most at risk of losing them. The study concluded that in reaction to patient cuts, home health services are cutting staff but not just the administrative staff but specialists, such as occupational and speech therapists and, again, quality care is being compromised. Those payment cuts are having a serious effect on patients, and they are also costly. Evidence is mounting that without adequate home care more Medicare patients are being readmitted to hospitals and nursing homes, adding to health care costs. Clearly, we need to act now to restore home health service payments to adequate levels. Before I conclude, I want to talk a little bit about the effect of payment cuts on hospice care. Many of us have had the experience of caring for a loved one who is terminally ill. My beloved father, Irwin Danoff, lived with me and my husband until he died in 1997, and we were fortunate enough to have hospice care provided by the wonderful people at the Palliative Care Center of the North Shore. At a time of great need, hospice provided medical care and medical devices but so much more; the comfort, the dignity, the support and the respect not only for him but for our family as well. Half a million patients a year depend on hospice care. Since 1982, when the benefit was initiated, millions of patients have been able to die in dignity and in comfort because of hospice. Unless we act now to provide for payments, patients and families may be unable to get the care and support they need. The hospice rate per day is supposed to cover all the costs related to terminal illness, including physicians, oversight services, counseling, prescription drugs, home health aides. It allows hospice providers to provide coordinated care and keeps patients and families from having to deal with multiple providers, at such an extremely critical and emotionally draining time. I speak from experience. The plain facts are that the hospice daily rate has not kept pace with the cost of providing the hospice service. We believe that terminally ill patients should receive pain medication and pain management, which is what my father needed, to make sure that their final days are not days of agony. In 1982, when the hospice benefit began, it assumed the drug cost would account for 3 percent of the daily rate. In today's dollars, that equals about $2.50 a day for pain medication, and that is just inadequate. In fact, on average the cost of providing drugs to hospice patients is between $12 and $14 a day. Some drugs may cost $36 a dose, like Duragesic, a pain relief drug, or Zofran, an effective anti-nausea drug. It costs $100 a day, but if a person needs it, they need it. The resources are needed to make sure that with new technologies available to treat acute pain symptoms that those technologies actually get to those who need them. Not only does hospice make sense for patients, it makes sense for Medicare as a whole because it is such a cost effective way of providing care. A 1995 Lewin study found, for example, that every dollar spent on hospice actually saves $1.52 in Medicare dollars that would otherwise be spent. I hope that we will act to provide adequate hospice payments. The first step would be to ensure that hospice providers receive their full Medicare update so that payments more accurately reflect actual costs. It is the compassionate thing to do. It is the medically appropriate thing to do. It is the right thing to do. Again, I want to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), for organizing this discussion.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago, a mother in Wyoming received news that tragically changed her life forever. Her son, an openly gay University of Wyoming student, was kidnapped, robbed, beaten, and burned by two male assailants. Left exposed to the elements, latched to a ranch fence for 18 hours, the young man Matthew Shepard died at a local hospital 6 days later. He lost his life as a result of bigotry and hate. One year later, we stand on the House floor empty handed, unable to provide any real comfort to the mothers and fathers of the Matthew Shapards of our Nation. One year later, we stand on the House floor to mourn the death of Matthew, yet, failed to honor his life in any meaningful way. One year later, we are working to ensure that the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 becomes the law of the land, yet a real threat exists that we may not succeed. Mr. Speaker, it is not fair to the families of America. It is not fair to the families who have lost a loved one as a result of hate. It is not fair for these families to have to wait for Congress to recognize their need and honor the lives of the loved ones they lost. It is not fair for Congress to remain silent while these programs loudly demand action. Hate can occur in any community. In Jasper, Texas, three white men dragged a 49-year-old black man for two miles while he was chained to the back of a pickup truck. In Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, a 21-year-old Private First Class was brutally beaten with a baseball bat in his barracks because he was gay. In my district over the Fourth of July weekend, hate erupted with a vengeance. A madman full of rage and with a gun took the life of two men and forever changed the lives of many families. This madman left us grieving for Ricky Byrdsong and his family and Woo-Joon Yoon, an Asian student from Bloomington, Indiana, and angry for the assault on Jewish men peacefully observing the Sabbath. Ricky Byrdsong lived in Skokie, Illinois, in my district. He was a loving husband, a father, a leader in the community, a former basketball coach at Northwestern University, a man of deep religious faith, and a constituent. He was murdered in cold blood. His only crime was the color of his skin. He was African-American. Many skeptics say we do not need this bill. But tell that to the family of Ricky Byrdsong or Matthew Shepard. I urge my House colleagues on the Commerce-State-Justice Conference Committee to agree to include the hate crimes prevention act in the final bill. We must expand and improve the Federal hate crimes law and punish those who choose their victims based on race or gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or physical disability. It would also make it easier for Federal law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute cases of racial and religious violence. State and local authorities currently prosecute the majority of hate crimes and will continue to do so under this legislation. Keeping the Hate Crimes Prevention Act in the appropriations bill will increase Federal jurisdiction to allow Federal officials to assist State and local authorities to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. It will also provide State and local programs with grants designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles. While serving in the Illinois State House, my colleagues and I were successful in strengthening State laws dealing with hate crimes. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues here in the Congress to translate successes on the State level to the national stage. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act is such an opportunity to send a clear and powerful message that the safety of all people is a priority and anyone who threatens that safety will face the consequences. As a Member of Congress who represents one of the most diverse districts in the Nation, I strongly believe that we must ensure the passage of this act. Hate crimes if left unchecked not only victimize our citizens but debase and shame us all.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2723, the Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act of 1999. Enactment of this bill is the answer to the letter I received from a mother and a constituent in my district. She wrote, ``When my middle son was born, the insurance company wouldn't let my son stay in the hospital one extra day to finish the course of antibiotics. They sent him home with a shunt in his arm. The neonatologist has warned us that typically in babies so small the shunt comes out and then you have to start the antibiotics all over again orally and that they would upset the baby's symptom, causing severe intestinal distress and diarrhea, not good for a newborn. My son's shunt came out, and he screamed for 2 weeks.'' This baby deserved better. This bill assures that doctors, not insurance companies, decide how long newborns get to stay in the hospital when they are sick. Let us act now. Let us pass H.R. 2723.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to Instruct Conferees to accept the other body's funding level for HUD, which provides more money for important housing and economic development programs than the House bill and is much closer to the President's request. There are 5.3 million people in this country who suffer worst case housing needs. In Chicago, nearly 35,000 people are on the waiting list for affordable public housing. This is not the time to cut much needed housing aid to people on fixed- and low-incomes. But the House would cut HUD funding. My district, alone, would lose $4.5 million in critical aid that the President requested in his HUD budget proposal. That's 386 jobs that would not be created and 256 homes that would not be built if we enact the House HUD budget. Across the country, the cuts would total 156,000 fewer homes and 97,000 fewer jobs. We can do better. The other body provides $500 million more for the Section 8 program, which provides rent subsidies for seniors, persons with disabilities and low-income families. It provides $64 million more for housing for seniors and persons with disabilities and for Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA). There is $300 million more the Community Development Block Grant Program, which local governments used to create jobs back home. Considering the importance of housing to the American family and the desperate need for that housing, it is incumbent upon us to take whatever opportunities are available to increase HUD funding. The other body's VA-HUD bill presents that opportunity. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Motion to Instruct Conferees to accept the other body's HUD funding level.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2401, The U.S. Holocaust Assets Commission Extension Act of which I am a proud cosponsor. Last year Congress passed legislation creating the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States. The creation of the Commission made clear the Congress' belief that knowledge of the whereabouts of Holocaust assets in the possession of the U.S. Government should be documented and those assets should be dealt with in a just and prompt manner. At a time when Holocaust survivors are aging and the U.S. Government is engaged in reparations negotiations on several fronts, we should certainly remain committed to a timely and thorough resolution of Holocaust assets issues in which the U.S. Government may be involved. H.R. 2401 will ensure that the President's Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States is given the time and resources necessary to complete its work. While a timely resolution is indeed of the utmost importance, it is reasonable to grant a year-long extension of the Commission. This one-year extension will facilitate a thorough and fair assessment of the United States' efforts to return Holocaust era assets of which our government is in possession. While we are actively pursuing reparations internationally on behalf of Holocaust victims and survivors, we also need to look carefully at the role of the United States. The United States has been a strong leader on Holocaust claims issues. We should also set an example of what it means to conduct transparent self-evaluation. Passage of H.R. 2401, and the subsequent extensions of the President's Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States, will allow the U.S. to continue to play a leadership role. Hopefully, in the year to come we will witness some measure of justice for Holocaust survivors and family members of Holocaust victims. I commend the work the Commission has done to date as well as the sponsors of this legislation. I urge all members to vote in support of H.R. 2401.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1451, the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission Act. On behalf of my constituents in the 9th Congressional District of Illinois. I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 1451, legislation which seeks to further honor the life of a most honorable individual, the sixteenth President of the United States and an American Hero, Abraham Lincoln. H.R. 1451, would establish a commission to study and recommend to Congress ways to celebrate the 200th anniversary of President Lincoln's birth. The bicentennial of President Lincoln's birth will be February 12, 2009. Although 2009 is a long way off, planning a celebration of the life, achievements and contributions made by President Lincoln to the United States is a task that deserves adequate time and resources. The values taught by Abraham Lincoln's leadership are celebrated today at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. Coming from the State of Illinois, which is also known as the ``Land of Lincoln,'' I was particularly moved when shortly after being sworn into service in Congress, I visited the Lincoln Memorial. I look forward to the Memorial's rededication in 2009. Authorizing further commemorations of his life and the issuance of a memorial stamp and minting of a bicentennial coin, and other activities are appropriate ways to celebrate the life of this shining example of American value. President Lincoln lost his life at the early age of 56, when he was shot and killed by an assassin. Although President Lincoln's life was taken at a young age, the values and lessons he taught through his policies and his eternal words of wisdom will remain with us forever. I look forward to reviewing the recommendations of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission and to celebrating with the people of Illinois and the entire nation the bicentennial of his birth in 2009. I urge all members to vote in support of H.R. 1451. Mrs. Biggert. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate what a great champion my colleague from North Carolina has been for quality education. I would like to share some of my experiences. Earlier this month, I visited Boone school in Chicago, in a community called Rogers Park, a bungalow Chicago community in my district, and I witnessed firsthand what kind of overcrowding was happening in my neighborhoods. This school has 1,100 children. It is built for 800 children. In one of the classrooms that I went to which was a converted teachers' lunchroom, really a small area, kind of a teachers' lounge, there was a classroom of children. One of the students handed me a picture that they had done. I would like to just show it to colleagues. This is, ``Thank you for caring about Boone students.'' These are Boone students, and they are all kind of overlapping each other. We have got Freddie under Matthew, and Monserrat laying over Brenda here. Rudy is yelling ``help''. We have got Jose over here and Mrs. Duarte kind of squished in the corner over there. She is the teacher. This was typical of what was going on. There was a classroom out in the hall. There were three classes in one room, three different languages. It was packed in there, and it was noisy because they were talking all different languages. Their teachers and the children were saying it was really hard to concentrate in a room like that. Walking down the hall, there was paint, I am not talking about a few chips, but paint pealing off the walls. They had done their best to rehab one of the corridors, but this one was terrible. Every morning, they would have to come in and sweep the floor to get the paint chips off. This is not because the school district, the Chicago public schools, have not done their best. I wanted to quote from the testimony of Gary Chico, president of the Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees when he came to Washington. He said, Since 1995, Chicago has committed close to $2 billion in primarily local funding for 575 separate projects at 371 schools. That money has built 8 new schools and 48 additions or annexes, adding 632 new classrooms to the district, which serves 430 school children. But more needs to be done, and Chicago cannot do it alone. We're doing our part, but we need partners at the Federal level to meet all the needs. We've conservatively identified another $1.5 billion in additional improvements needed before we can say that our schools are truly the kinds of learning environments that we know will make a difference. The fact is, improving the learning environment improves performance. When kids are in crumbling school buildings with outdated equipment, they're getting the message that education isn't important. When they're in overcrowded classrooms or taking class in hallways or basements because the classrooms are full, they figure school isn't important. We can't afford to send that message to our children. We're entering a new century. Every forward-thinking industry knows they can pack up and move anywhere on earth and conduct their business. If we want them to stay here and invest in America, we have to give them a workforce that can deliver in Chicago and in schools throughout the Nation. In Illinois, 89 percent of the schools reported a need to upgrade or repair their buildings, 62 percent reported at least one inadequate building feature. It could be a roof or plumbing or electricity or windows or pealing paint. Seventy percent reported at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor. So I am urging my colleagues to support the President's school modernization bill introduced by the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). That bill would provide $24.8 billion in interest- free funding over the next 2 years for school construction and modernization projects, allowing Illinois to issue $1.125 billion in bond. Chicago alone would be able to issue $676 million in bonds and save up to $333 million in interest payments. It is unacceptable to send our children to 19th Century schools as we go into the 21st Century. Investment in the children today will pay dividends to generations to come.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois for organizing this special order tonight and for yielding time. His commitment to providing quality health care in Illinois and across the Nation is unparalleled. There is probably not a Member in this House that is not committed to and has not talked about protecting Medicare, but that means more than just the benefits under the Medicare program. That means that we have a strong and vibrant delivery system in place. That is what we need, one that is available to meet the needs of Medicare beneficiaries. Unfortunately, the payment cuts required under the Balanced Budget Act threaten that delivery system. Inadequate payment levels are jeopardizing quality care at nursing homes, in hospices, for home care services, and the subject of tonight's special order, hospitals. Now, my mother-in-law in Shreveport, Louisiana, Adelaide Creamer, was director of volunteer services at the large university hospital there; and she knows, as good as volunteers are, this is one issue where we are going to need far more than that in order to meet the needs of our Medicare patients. We need to understand as policymakers and as consumers that payment cuts and inadequate reimbursement levels are patient issues. Patients will suffer if we do not act now to correct the problems created by the Balanced Budget Act. The Balanced Budget Act, when it was passed, was supposed to cut hospital rates by $53 billion, but the actual cuts are now estimated to be $71 billion. As the gentleman from Illinois has said, cuts in Illinois would be close to $3 billion, and, in my Congressional District alone, the cuts could approach $270 million over 5 years. Because the size of the cuts grows every year, the longer we wait to correct this problem, the greater the impact on patients and healthcare quality. I want to emphasize that we are not talking here about slowing the growth rate in hospital payments in the coming years. Without a correction in the Balanced Budget Act provision, Illinois hospitals will face actual reductions below existing payment levels. That is why the Honorable John Stroger, President of the Cook County Board, and Robert Maldonado, County Commissioner, and many of the members of the Cook County board, introduced and passed a resolution that calls on the President and the Members of the 106th Congress to refrain from enacting additional Medicare reductions in addition to those contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and to use at least a portion of the Federal budget surplus to address the negative impact caused by these reductions. Obviously, as the cost of healthcare rises, cuts of these magnitudes will mean that hospitals will face horrible decisions, whether to cut back on staffing, turn away patients, shut down services such as trauma care, delay elective surgery, impose cutbacks on clinics and outpatient services. In February, I wrote to President Clinton endorsing his proposal to use 15 percent of the budget surplus for Medicare and encouraging him to place a moratorium on any further BBA, Balanced Budget Act, payment reductions. Recognizing the problems being created already by the Balanced Budget Act, we simply cannot allow it to continue in place. We need to take additional steps as well. I particularly am concerned about the impact of cuts on disproportionate share hospitals, hospitals that serve a large number of uninsured and underinsured patients. We have heard a lot this week from the Republican leadership expressing their concern about the 44 million uninsured Americans. Disproportionate share hospitals care for those uninsured persons. They are the only source of care for many children and adults. According to the Illinois Hospital Association, 30 percent of these disproportionate share hospitals had negative margins before the Balanced Budget Act was enacted. By 2002, if we do not act to stop further reductions, two out of every three of these hospitals serving low-income people will have negative margins. In Illinois, these DSH hospitals, is what we call them, will lose $1.7 billion. $1.7 billion. These cuts are simply not sustainable. As the number of uninsured rises, DSH providers should be getting more resources, not suffer the cutbacks required under the balanced budget amendment. Patients who rely on teaching hospitals would also suffer. The $1.1 billion in projected cuts to Illinois teaching hospitals threaten their ability to train medical professionals and serve patients. Tertiary teaching hospitals in Illinois provide over half of all charity care in the State, even though they represent only 13 percent of hospitals. That care too would be threatened. Finally, teaching hospitals provide critical specialty services, trauma centers, organ transplants, specialized AIDS care, and other critical services. Teaching hospitals are pioneers in training medical professionals and providing complex and innovative medical technologies to patients. We should make it a priority to ensure that they have adequate resources to continue to do so. As less and less services are performed on an inpatient basis and more and more in hospital outpatient departments, we need to take action to stop drastic cuts for outpatient services. Finally, I hope that we will act to repeal the annual $1,500 per patient cap on rehabilitation therapy payments. This arbitrary cap is preventing patients from getting adequate care to maintain, restore, and improve their functioning. We need to protect and increase payments to disproportionate share hospitals and payments for teaching hospitals. We need to protect against drastic cuts in outpatient hospital care. If we fail to do so, the real victims will not be the providers, they will be the patients who rely on their hospitals for quality, compassionate, and timely care. Again, I thank the gentleman for the time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the United States Supreme Court will soon hear a case that will have far reaching consequences for millions of health maintenance organization patients. The justices will review an Illinois case about whether patients can sue HMO plans that give doctors bonuses to keep treatment costs down. The issue that the Supreme Court will examine is whether patients can sue HMOs, under federal law, for making medical decisions based on the bottom line. Millions of Americans already believe that HMOs that limit medical treatment to cut costs and increase profits should be held accountable in a court of law. That is why the Supreme Court decision to review this case is so critical. That is why it is also vital for Congress to pass meaningful and necessary patient protections that will help give millions of Americans the tools they need to end HMO abuses and hold HMOs accountable. I wish to attach an article from today's Chicago Sun-Times about the upcoming Supreme Court case. [From the Chicago Sun Times, Sept. 29, 1999] Court To Hear HMO Bonuses Case (By Lyle Denniston) Washington.--The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether it is legal for doctors to cut back on treatment to save money for a health maintenance organization. The outcome of a case from Illinois may go far to determine how much protection federal law will offer Americans in the face of cost-cutting efforts by managed care plans. In the case, a federal appeals court ruled that it is illegal under federal law for doctors who make treatment decisions for patients of a medical benefits plan to get bonuses for saving the plan money by providing less expensive care. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Chicago, decided last year that those who make the key decisions for a benefits plan must do so only to further the interests of the patients. Anyone in the plan management, including doctors who determine the nature and duration of treatment, is obliged to protect the fund's assets for the patients' benefit, the appeals court said. The appeals court said it feared that managing care has been replaced by managing costs. A Downstate Bloomington doctor and her HMO employer took the dispute to the Supreme Court, calling the appeals court ruling ``dangerous and disruptive to health care providers and the nation's overall system of health care delivery.'' This controversy, the doctor and the HMO contended, ``is of profound national importance. Most contemporary welfare benefit plans provide for managed care, through HMOs or other devices.'' The appeals court ruling, they argued, makes the main type of organization now used for medical care unlawful. The case arose after a patient, Cynthia Herdrich, went to see the Bloomington doctor for an abdominal pain. In her 1992 lawsuit against Carle Clinic Association, Herdrich contended that the doctor found a small inflamed mass in the abdomen and directed treatment to be done eight days later at an HMO- owned facility 50 miles away rather than at a Bloomington hospital. During the eight-day wait, the patient claimed, her appendix ruptured. She said this added further to the HMO's costs, so she sued the doctor to recover for the plan the expenses of her added care. Her claim was dismissed in federal court but was reinstated during appeal.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I read with great interest the story of Ms. Sherol Boles in an op-ed by Anthony Lewis in today's New York Times. It is a heart-wrenching story about a woman who is battling for her right to remain in this country with her children and her husband. Tragically, she may be deported at any time due to arbitrary decision making by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the harshness of the 1996 immigration law. Mrs. Boles' story is not an isolated incident. Since taking office, I have personally heard INS horror stories from many immigrants, legal residents, and citizens who write, call, and visit my office seeking assistance. Ninety percent of casework in my district office is related to immigration issues. Many of the problems stem from a clear lack of inefficiency and unpreparedness in the INS office in Chicago. During my visit to the Chicago INS office earlier this year, I witnessed first hand this inefficiency and unpreparedness. Even worse, I also witnessed the mistreatment of customers, the lack of respect for individuals, the complete disregard of common decency and the hostile environment many must face. The culture of the ``Customer is Always Wrong'' at the INS must change. Customers at the Chicago INS must receive the quality service they deserve. These legal residents are customers who pay high fees and they deserve to be treated with respect. The Chicago INS responded to my concerns and those of my colleagues by taking steps to improve the quality of service. However, we must work to ensure that those steps taken by the Chicago INS remain in place and that additional improvements are made. Finally, we must translate our local efforts to the national stage so people like Sherol Boles are given the chance to live the American dream. [From the New York Times, Sept. 28, 1999] Balance of Hardships (By Anthony Lewis) Boston--Dickens gave us the classic picture of official heartlessness: the government Circumlocution Office, burial ground of hope in ``Little Dorrit.'' It would take his savage wit to tell, properly, the story of Sherol Boles and the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Mrs. Boles is a 33-year-old woman from Barbados. In 1996 she married Michael Boles, an American who served 12 years in the U.S. Marines. They have 2-year-old twins, born three months prematurely weighing less than two pounds each; they were hospitalized for months and are still under medical treatment. The I.N.S. has ruled that Mrs. Boles's marriage entitles her to permanent residence here: a green card. But for reasons in the past she is legally deportable, and the I.N.S. says she must be deported. If she is, it may be as long as 10 years before she can enter the United States again. Mrs. Boles wants to have her deportation case reopened, so account can be taken of her now-established right to a green card and her children's fragile health. If she is deported alone, her husband could not possibly take care of the twins by himself. If she takes them with her, the medical care they need may not be available in Barbados. But the case cannot be reopened without the consent of I.N.S. officials, and they refuse to give it. Why? I.N.S. lawyers explained in a brief, ``She has not shown that she would suffer irreparable injury or that the balance of hardships tilt in her favor.'' Dickens could not have put more unfeeling words in the mouth of one of his fictional tormentors. Mrs. Boles is still in the United States because her lawyer, Harvey Kaplan of Boston, sought and won a stay of deportation from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The I.N.S. is urging the court to withdraw the stay. The past chapters of the story deepen its harshness. Mrs. Boles came to the United States in 1990, to Boston. Some years later she tried to obtain legal permanent residence by using the services of one Joseph Chatelain, who called himself an ``immigration adviser.'' By 1995 Mrs. Boles and others realized they had been defrauded by Mr. Chatelain. She testified in full and agreed to be a witness against him, but he fled and has not been found. In 1995, on the basis of her own statements, an immigration judge ordered her deported. He allowed her to depart voluntarily--legally advantageous--by April 1996 ``or any extensions as granted'' by the I.N.S. Immigration officials in Boston, citing her cooperation in the Chatelain case, extended the date successively to March 1998. In the meantime Mrs. Boles had married and moved to her husband's home in Phoenix. In February 1997 Michael Boles filed an I-130 petition to get his wife permanent residence. The petition went to the I.N.S. Texas service center, covering Phoenix. It was then transferred to a California center, and from there back to the local I.N.S. office in Phoenix. In May 1998, with the petition still pending and the date for voluntary departure just past, the I.N.S. office in Boston gave Mrs. Boles a year's stay of deportation. A year later she had still heard nothing about her green card. She asked an I.N.S. officer in Phoenix for a further stay. Denying it, he said the delay on the green card petition must mean that her marriage was fraudulent--in effect blaming her for the notorious inefficiency of the I.N.S. ``Based on a careful review of the facts of this case,'' an official wrote, ``there do not appear to be any unusual humanitarian factors.'' The petition for a green card was finally granted this past June, more than two years after it was filed. So far it has not helped Sherol Boles. If she is deported, she may come within provisions of the harsh 1996 Immigration Act that would bar her from this country for 5 or 10 years. Tough as it is, the 1996 law gives the I.N.S. power to reopen this case. But the service seems determined in its refusal. In its First Circuit brief it argued that the court has no power to review its decision, right or wrong. Why is the I.N.S. so adamant? It must want to establish the principle that nobody--not event a court--can make it pay attention to reason and humanity.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for this amendment which I strongly support. Like my colleague from Wisconsin, in large part I wanted to come to this body to address the issue of health care, the crisis that so many families face, those that have insurance but find it inadequate, those that lose their jobs and lose their insurance, those that have no insurance and have no hope of affording it. I just wanted to read a letter from a constituent. This is typical. This is one of many. It is an e-mail I got the other day that says, The cost of health care is killing me. I'm self-employed and the cost of medical insurance for my family of three is about $9,000 a year. That's with high deductibles. That means we also have to pay several thousands of dollars a year in medical bills. These costs are getting out of control. I don't believe that private insurance or even HMOs are the answer anymore. I think it's time for a single-payer insurance system backed by the Federal Government. I would appreciate your working with others in Congress to start moving in this direction. And so I rise to support an amendment that I think does move us at least in the direction of exploring how we can answer this gentleman who wrote on behalf of his family. Five years ago, we failed to pass comprehensive health reform and instead we left it to the for-profit health insurance industry to make critical decisions: whom to cover, what to cover and what to charge. Today what do we have? More uninsured Americans, more underinsured Americans, more American families struggling to pay premiums and medical costs that are increasingly unaffordable. The gentleman's amendment is needed for four reasons. First, we must act now to provide health insurance to the uninsured. It is embarrassing, 44.3 million people now lacking any health coverage in this the wealthiest Nation in the world, a 1.7 million jump from the year before. Eleven million of these people are children. In my State nearly one of eight are uninsured and the numbers keep growing. According to an AFL-CIO study, 8 million fewer Americans in working families have employer-based coverage now than in 1989. If that erosion continues, the study concluded that 12.5 million more people would lose coverage over the next 5 years. And, second, we need to act to improve coverage for the poorly insured. Millions of insured Americans lack coverage for critical benefits. That includes 13 million senior citizens who lack prescription drug coverage as well as families who lack access to mental health services, rehab therapy, long-term care and other important services. Even if they have an insurance card, they are still effectively uninsured for services if their policies do not cover the services they need. Third, we must act to lower health care costs for individuals and families as well as for our Nation. High insurance premiums and out-of- pocket costs present insurmountable barriers blocking access to needed care. A recent Commonwealth Foundation survey found that 40 million people went without needed medical care because they could not afford it and another 40 million said they did not have enough money to pay their medical bills. Finally, we pay a high price for not guaranteeing access to needed medical care. We pay a high price. Lack of insurance, inadequate insurance and high costs keep millions of Americans from getting the health care that they need. There is a cost to the individuals and families who cannot get care and as a result suffer from illnesses and conditions that could be prevented. There is the cost to society, to all of us, from lost wages and productivity from those who cannot work because of the preventable injuries or who cannot work because the job does not provide coverage. And there is the cost of paying for expensive illnesses and emergency care that could have been avoided through a more rational approach to health care. This amendment moves us in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to act now to pass it.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 202. I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his support of this particular provision. I know that his support has helped to improve this bill. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for bringing this matter to the attention of the committee and to the full House of Representatives and the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity as well as my colleague from Minnesota who made such significant contributions to the improvement of this bill. I am happy to add what I could and to cosponsor it. The bill would authorize more money for housing for seniors and persons with disabilities and make that money available to buy more amenities for that housing. In so doing, this bill recognizes that there is a crisis in housing for seniors and persons with disabilities and seeks to meet their particular housing needs. I am especially enthusiastic about this legislation because it includes provisions that will encourage more funding for smaller and more livable housing developments and thereby allow nonprofits in my district and across the country to better meet the housing needs of seniors. Traditionally, publicly assisted housing was large scale. And while we may have achieved economies of scale, we also did not consider necessarily what is best for seniors and persons with disabilities. We do not build large developments in the same way that we did anymore. Instead, we are building smaller and more livable developments. Unfortunately, the grant formula does not account for smaller developments and the lost savings. In my district there is housing development after housing development whose grant award is insufficient to build developments that are already approved. For example, I spent part of Sunday at Ebenezer AME church announcing the award of over $2 million in supplemental HUD grants so that we could finally build a project that HUD had originally approved 3 years ago. In fact, this year I had to request supplemental grants for nearly 10 underfunded projects back home. Clearly, the grant formula needs to be adjusted. I hope that the provision that I was able to add that was included in this bill will get us the necessary information to make the appropriate adjustment. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 202 and again thank the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity for granting me the time to speak to this.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my strong opposition to H.R. 1875. This is a classic example of a solution looking for a problem. Worse, it is an ill-conceived solution that actually creates a problem. Class action suits are not clogging State courts as proponents assert, but H.R. 1875 would virtually assure that Federal courts get clogged. The real problem is that children, families, communities, and small businesses are being injured by dangerous, even reckless, corporate behavior. They need access to our civil justice system. While most businesses take care to sell safe products, some do not. Consider families whose children became ill or died after eating E. coli tainted hamburgers, small businesses and consumers who were overcharged on electric rates, communities whose drinking water was contaminated by pesticides, drivers whose auto insurance policies were unfairly canceled. All of them joined together in class action suits. If H.R. 1875 had been in effect, they would have all found it far more difficult, if not impossible, to get their fair day in court. I join with consumer groups and senior groups in opposing this legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), who is really an inspiration to all of us on this issue, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, say to the chairman, I need to tell him that the most commonly asked question in the Ninth Congressional District, which borders on the district of the chairman, is why can the House not do something about guns? My constituents asked me that after Columbine and they asked me after there was the shooting in my district of the worshippers going home from the synagogue who were shot on the street and the murder of Ricky Birdsong in Skokie, which is in my district, and they asked me if the shootings at the Jewish Community Center in California were going to be enough finally for us to ask. And when the mad gunman was in Atlanta, they thought, well, this has got to be it, that is going to tip the scales. And then Fort Worth, where even the church was a dangerous place. And when I go home, they look at me and they scratch their head and they look in my face and they want to know an answer. They want to know what is it going to take, how many children are we going to bury, how many school shootings are there going to be. And I really do not have an answer. So why do we not open up the process? Why do we not let the people of America in on the mystery of how Congress addresses issues like gun violence? The chairman spoke about inching closer, inching closer. But inching closer is not a consolation when I go to the funerals in my district, and I have been to three in the last recent months, of children who were killed by gun violence. Inching closer does not satisfy. They want to know when. Let us do it now. Let us open the process. Let us restore confidence in people that this Congress can act, that we can do something, that there is an orderly process, that there is real debate, that there is real movement. If we pass the motion of the gentlewoman, we can at least include the American people who want action in on this process and, hopefully, we can resolve this issue before another incident, which I guarantee, my colleagues, will occur if we do not act and do not act now. So I rise in support of the motion.