Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 121, the Child Custody Protection Act. Let me tell my colleagues a story about a functional family, in many ways a picture-perfect family. A few years ago, I had lunch with Karen and Bill Bell, who had a 17- year-old daughter named Becky, and a son that lived in a suburb. They had a wonderful life, they were a close family, and they supported, Bill and Karen did, parental notification requirements. That is until Becky lay dying in the hospital. As Karen sat next to her, holding her hand, she said, ``Becky, tell mommy what happened.'' Well, what happened to Becky is that she had an illegal abortion in a State that required parental notification, and she did not want to disappoint her loving parents. Bill and Karen took a year out of their lives and went State to State to try to oppose parental notification laws. Not because they do not want close families but because they do not want young women like Becky, beautiful young women with their full lives ahead of them, to die. And so I submit to my colleagues, who in all good faith support this legislation, that the consequences of this law will be that young women will die. It will be women from dysfunctional families and women from middle class and functional families alike, young women who have their entire lives ahead of them, and I would suggest that this should be soundly defeated.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of a resolution condemning the acts of arson at three Sacramento, California area synagogues on June 18, 1999. The destruction done to Congregation B'nai Israel, Congregation Beth Shalom, and Kenesset Israel Torah Center was malicious and willful. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Resolution introduced by the gentleman from California, and denounce these acts of hate. As a Jewish Member of Congress I am particularly sensitive to acts of anti-Semitism. The elected leaders of this great country must never permit these types of actions to occur. The Jewish community has endured a great deal of persecution throughout history, and as Members of Congress it is our responsibility to provide a strong voice of opposition to threatening acts of hate. The people of the 9th Congressional District, whom I have the privilege to represent, pride themselves on the rich diversity that our district boasts. Diversity in the 9th Congressional District is seen as a unique attribute, not a threat. The recent acts of hate perpetrated in Sacramento are an insult to me and to all Americans who celebrate the diversity and ethnic traditions from which this country has benefited. An attack on any place of religious worship is a threat to the freedom of expression and religion that we all enjoy. I applaud my colleagues who have taken a strong leadership role on this issue, and I would like to associate myself with the comments of those who have spoken on the House floor in support of this resolution. It is important for this body, and Americans across the country, to speak out against all crimes of hate. I am proud to support this resolution.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for his leadership on this issue and for organizing this discussion tonight. I was happy to join that long line of people this morning who were signing a discharge petition to allow us to fully debate HMO reform on the floor of this House. I guess we are up to about 167 Members now who are saying simply, let us discuss HMO reform, let us bring up this important legislation so that we can represent what we are hearing from constituents. But I did something else today. I put an appeal to my constituents on my website today so that they can join and be a force in helping to pass this legislation. When you get to my web site, which by the way is www.house.gov/ schakowsky, and if anyone wants to go there, I would welcome it. Whether or not you are in my district, I would appreciate hearing from you about this. It says, in flashing letters, ``Help me end HMO abuses.'' What I am asking them for, it is a constituent alert, send me your HMO horror stories. I think it will be helpful to us if we get them to tell us. All of us have heard and I have got lots of letters myself, but I am hoping to collect a lot more. Let me read my colleagues this invitation. It says, ``The time is now for Congress to pass the Patients' Bill of Rights, H.R. 358. It is time for HMOs to be held accountable for their actions and for medical decisions to be made by doctors and nurses, not by HMO accountants. There are proposals in Congress that claim to offer reform but instead would let HMOs go about their business of cutting care, limiting services, and raising costs while enjoying record profits. I need your help to pass real reform and defeat phony legislation. I know that many of you have fought battles with your HMOs and more often than not you lost. If you believe that it is time to stop HMO abuses, the time to act is now. E-mail me your HMO horror story, let me know if you have been denied care, forced to change your doctor in the middle of treatment, lost coverage, refused access to a specialist, or had to work for days to get what you deserved. Together, we can convince Congress to pass the Patients' Bill of Rights.'' The other thing that is on the web site is a petition that has been on many web sites around the country now calling on Congress to pass the Patients' Bill of Rights so that we can get our constituents involved in the process here, bring their voice here to Congress. That, I think, ultimately is going to be the thing that will pass this legislation. I want to urge people, and I think we are making a commitment today to do everything we can, but I am urging people who may be listening and I am certainly trying to urge my constituents to pick up the phone, call your Member of Congress, let the President know, let the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, know that you want real HMO reform. By that, we should be talking about H.R. 358. I think the gentleman has done a good job in describing the important pieces that are in that legislation that are not in others. I am a new Member of Congress. I have found that there are a whole lot of ways to either skirt an issue or to water it down. One of them is, first of all just do not bring it up. So that is why today so many of the Members of this body signed this discharge petition so that we could have the debate. I think it is too bad that we have to go through these kinds of mechanisms in order to just discuss things. One is, do not bring it up, delay it as long as you can. But the other is to offer a solution that sounds like a solution but is not really a solution. That is the other thing that is going on here. There are bills that people want to be able to stand up and say, ``Oh, this is the Patients' Bill of Rights. This will really solve the problem.'' We have looked carefully at all those proposals and seriously at all those proposals; and we know that the elements that need to be in there, really putting health care decisions in the hands of health care professionals, making sure that HMO plans are held accountable. I had a similar experience in Illinois where I was in the general assembly. The lobbyist for the HMO who came to testify before our health committee said, ``Oh, no, we don't make health care decisions. We only make coverage decisions. We're an insurance company.'' I said, ``Well, excuse me, sir, but in the real world, there is no difference between a health care decision and a coverage decision, because you are saying then to people, oh, you can have your heart transplant, but you have to go out and pay for it yourself. That bone marrow transplant might do you some good in your cancer treatment, but we aren't going to cover it, but you can go buy it yourself.'' Ordinary people cannot go out and buy expensive tests, expensive treatments, go off to a specialist that they feel that they need or that even their primary care doctor may feel that they need. So health care decisions are made every day by HMOs because they will only cover certain things. And so they should be held accountable. That is what H.R. 358 does. It also gives patients the right to appeal those decisions and not just to appeal it to the HMO who just denied them the care, they will have the right to external appeal, someone outside, an objective observer to look in and say, ``Were you wrongfully denied the care that you asked for?'' So there is phony HMO reform and there is real HMO reform. That is what we are involved in with our discharge petition. I hope that is what we can engage the American people in, in a debate on this, real health care reform, HMO reform, and I hope that people will send their horror stories to me, will get the petition signed through the Internet and get this bill on the floor and get it passed.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for organizing this intelligent and thoughtful and optimistic discussion, and for allowing me to participate. From May 20 to May 24, we were both part of a congressional delegation to the Balkans that was led by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), and due to the persistence really of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), our delegation was able to get a firsthand picture of the situation in the days before the agreement was signed, a very comprehensive picture of the refugee camps and the troop deployment, and to meet with General Wesley Clarke. It was quite an informative and incredible trip. The most poignant moment for me and I think for all of us came on Sunday, May 23, when we were at the Kosovo/Macedonia border of Blace when traumatized refugees began streaming, or, more appropriately, staggering, across the border. We were able to talk with them, and what we heard made us literally weep along with them. Stories of guns to the head, a grenade thrown into a family group; being driven from home with 5 minutes' notice; eating grass in the hills; hunger; terror; murder. In a tent of some 15 women, I would say, and a few dozen children, it was eerily quiet. Those of us who have children know that when we get that many little kids together, it is usually noisy and a lot of energy. It was really silent in there. These women had no idea where their husbands were, and their children, of course, had no idea where their fathers were. In another tent, a well-dressed man pointed to the wheelbarrow he had used to wheel his frail, elderly mother across the border. He was fine for a while in talking about what happened to his family, but then, when he talked about the wheelbarrow and pointed to his mother who was sitting on a blanket, he broke down. She was comforting him by saying, at least we are still alive. He did not know, however, if the same were true for his grown children. The day that I came back, there was an e-mail waiting for me from a constituent that said, I quote, ``I have serious reservations about your casual use of terms like atrocities, crimes against humanity, genocide.'' I guess that e-mail kind of hit me at the wrong moment, because after having talked to victims of and witnesses to the terror of the Serbian forces, I felt that these words were exactly appropriate. And now, of course, we are learning more every day about the extent of the atrocities committed against the ethnic Albanian Kosovars. Estimates of the number dead keep rising. Evidence of torture abounds. Mass graves, rape, burned bodies, human shields, it is really hard to read the accounts. Then the evening after our return, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), who was also part of our delegation, and I cohosted a reception at the Holocaust Museum for our freshmen colleagues. At that event, Miles Lehrman, who is president of the Holocaust Council and a Holocaust survivor said, this is his quote: ``It is here,'' he was talking about the museum, ``It is here where you will fully comprehend that the Holocaust did not begin in Auschwitz or in any of the death camps. It began when lawmakers lacked the stamina to speak out against the constantly escalating evils. It is here where it will become clear to you what our role in Kosovo must be. It is here where you will see what can happen to a people who become mezmerized by a political charlatan who professed to simple answers to complex and difficult problems. It is here where you will be able to fortify your inner strengths, to stick to your convictions and speak your mind in your legislative deliberations, even at times when your opinion may not be most popular. It will strengthen your determination to stand alone, if need be, and speak truth to power.'' That was Miles Lehrman, the president of the Holocaust Council. I often speak of my granddaughter, Isabel, on this floor. She is now 15 months old. I thought about her when I thought about Kosovo and knew that if, when she grew up, she asked me what I did to stop the killing of innocent people, I wanted to tell her that I did the right thing. And when I listened to that brave survivor of the Holocaust, I heard him saying that we did the right thing to stop Milosevic. But our job is not done yet. It will not be done until those mothers are reunited with their husbands who we hope are still alive; until the man and his mother are home, and the wheelbarrow is used in the garden again; and until our children start playing games of peace and not of war. And until the vision of the gentleman from Wisconsin, his vision of Europe that, with the help of the United States and NATO and the international community, can be a unified Europe working as part of a more unified international community, I think that was the ultimate goal of our mission there, and I hope very much that we can be part of achieving that goal as we move forward.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1175, a bill introduced by my distinguished colleague from California, Representative Tom Lantos. I am proud to be one of 91 cosponsors of this important bipartisan initiative, which will help to locate and secure the return of Zachary Baumel, an American citizen, and other Israeli soldiers missing in action. The United States has a unique responsibility to ensure the security of Israel--a steadfast ally and strategic partner in democracy. The United States also has an unquestionable responsibility to secure the well-being of its citizens when possible, no matter where they may be located. Zachary Baumel is an American citizen. He has been missing since 1982, when he was captured following a tank battle with Syrian forces at Sultan Ya' akub in Lebanon. At the time, Mr. Baumel was serving in the Israeli military. It is important to note that Mr. Baumel's service in Israel at no time altered his status as an American citizen. I feel strongly that the United States should make every effort to secure information as to the whereabouts of Zachary Baumel as well as insist upon his release. I also would hope that the United States would support efforts made by Israel to secure the release of Zvi Feldman and Yehuda Katz, two Israeli citizens who served in the Israeli military and were captured along with Zachary Baumel at Sultan Ya' akub in Lebanon. Yasser Arafat of the PLO provided evidence to Israeli government officials that Zachary Baumel was alive and that Mr. Arafat had information as to his whereabouts. In the Gaza-Jericho agreement reached between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government, Palestinian officials agreed to cooperate with Israel in locating and working for the return of Israeli soldiers missing in action. Five years have passed since the Gaza-Jericho agreement and Zachary Baumel, Yehuda Katz, and Zvi Feldman are still missing. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill. It is imperative that the U.S. Department of State raise the issue of Zachary Baumel, Zvi Feldman, and Yehuda Katz on an urgent basis with the appropriate government officials which may be helpful in locating and securing the return of these soldiers. The United States government must remain vigilant in its efforts to locate these brave soldiers, who have been missing for more than 17 years.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) for organizing this discussion in support of Seven Days in June, June 7 to 25. This is a week celebrating union organizing victories, and recognizing the importance of giving workers the freedom to choose a voice at work. I am a proud member of UNITE, the needle trades union. I am proud of the accomplishments the union movement has won. Unions brought us the 40-hour work week, workers compensation, overtime compensation, and the end of child labor in this country. Union members on average earn 32 percent more than other workers. They are more likely to receive health insurance and pension benefits from their employers. More importantly, they have provided an organized voice for workers who have used that voice to make improvements in productivity, workplace safety, and environmental conditions. Today there is perhaps no greater evidence of the need for workers to organize than the health care industry. The power of the for-profit health care industry has led to unwise cost-cutting that threatens not only the health and financial security of health care workers, but the patients they serve. Several years ago, two nurses in New Jersey raised concerns about the effect of drive-through deliveries on mothers and infants, moms and babies being sent home the same day of delivery. One nurse, a union member, was threatened with retaliation, but was protected by her union. The other, an unorganized worker, had no one to intervene on her behalf. Since then, Congress has passed a prohibition on drive-through deliveries, but without protection against retaliation, how many health care workers will be willing to talk about dangerous conditions? We need to pass whistle-blower protections, but we also need to give health care workers the opportunity to join a union if they want to. Health care workers all over the country are looking to unions to protect them when they report problems. They are looking to unions to ensure they have safe working conditions. This week in Chicago the AMA, the American Medical Association, is meeting to talk about unionization so physicians can have a strong voice in negotiating with large HMOs that dictate the terms of patient care. Yet, when workers want to form a union, they face tremendous obstructions. The decks are stacked against them. At the same time that the AMA was meeting in Chicago, respiratory therapists from Vencor Hospital held a press conference with the help of the Chicago Federation of Labor. The therapists, concerned about the impacts on patients' safety as a result of a planned 25 percent budget cut, expressed their desire to form a union. They have been confronted with a series of anti-union tactics by their employer. One nurse was fired because she spoke out in support of union representation. Workers across the country, particularly in the health care area, are deciding that they need union representation to protect themselves, their families, and their patients. We should ensure that they have a fair opportunity to make that choice. It is as American as apple pie.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the McCarthy/Roukema/Blagojevich amendment. Common sense dictates that we, as representatives of the American people, support this measure. This amendment is not about taking rights away from law abiding citizens. It is about closing a loophole in the law that gives criminals a free pass at gunshows. This amendment would provide law enforcement officials with the same three business days to conduct background checks at gunshows that they are now given when guns are bought in stores. This amendment would go a long way in ensuring that guns stay out of the hands of criminals. The American people demand action from this House of Representatives. Mothers and fathers are demanding action to protect the most vulnerable among us, our children, from the onslaught of gun violence that is taking the lives of 13 of them each day. They are telling us that ``It's the guns--stupid.'' How many more children will be lost before Congress gets the message? How many more mothers will have to suffer before we act? The American people are watching. We cannot shy away from our responsibility. We must rise to the occasion and pass meaningful gun safety legislation that will help end the cycle of violence.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment. Many of us here in Congress are working to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But if this amendment is approved, it will do just the opposite because it will give law enforcement officials less time to complete background checks at gun shows. It is a step backward. This amendment is ineffective and is riddled with loopholes. It would weaken existing laws and put the safety of law enforcement officials and every person in this nation at risk. It is no coincidence that the gun lobby supports this measure. It would be a sad commentary on the state of Congress if the gun lobby is successful in strong-arming members of Congress to support this measure. Should this amendment pass, American families will soon find out that the gun lobby, with its deep pockets, calls the shots in the U.S. House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the McCarthy/Roukema/Blagojevich amendment and other measures that will be offered during this debate. We must put the safety and security of our children ahead of the interests of the gun lobby. These measures include the sale of child-safety locks with each handgun, instant background checks at gun shows, and the importation ban of ammunition magazines with a capacity of ten or more rounds of ammunition. This is what a majority of our constituents want and it is the duty of Congress to respond to their outcry.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCarthy- Roukema-Blagojevich amendment and the Conyers-Campbell amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dingell amendment and in support of the Conyers-Campbell amendment and the McCarthy-Roukema-Blagojevich amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. I would like to read excerpts from a letter that I received. My name is Karly Kupferberg, and I live in Evanston, Illinois. I am 14 years old, currently in the 8th grade, attending Haven Middle School. School is supposed to be a place where kids go to get an education and to start their future. Also, school is supposed to be where kids can go and feel safe, but instead, more and more kids are dying at school. I know that when I heard about the Columbine shooting, I thought to myself, here we go again. The next day I had to go to school in a similar environment of the Columbine shooting and worry about someone coming in with a gun, opening fire. It was terrifying. This is too much for kids to deal with, and I don't find it fair. Why should we have to worry about dying at school? I think it is time as a Nation for us to put our foot down to these school shootings and do something about it. A very good way to start would be Federal gun control laws. Something has to be done, because by the appearance of things right now, it doesn't look like much is getting done on Capitol Hill. Karly says, we want it stopped, and we need help because we cannot do it by ourselves. We can help Karly, my granddaughter, Isabel and all of our children by plugging the loopholes and voting for McCarthy, Roukema and Blagojevich amendment. I would like to read a letter that I received. May 16, 1999. Dear Jan Schakowsky, My name is Karly Kupferberg and I live in Evanston, Illinois. I am fourteen years old, currently in the eighth grade attending Haven Middle School, Next year I will be entering Evanston Township High School as a freshman. Over the past couple of years, as you know, there have been an extremely high number of school shootings. I noticed that each time these unfortunate shootings happen, the assailants become bolder which culminates in more tragedy. School is supposed to be a place where kids go to get an education and to start to build their future. Also, school is supposed to be where kids can go and feel safe, but instead, more and more kids are dying at school. What is going on here? Schools are no place for violence and crime. This should not be happening to children, the future of America. How are kids supposed to go and get an education when they have to be worried about their safety in school and it being the next place for these school shootings to happen? I know that when I heard about the Columbine shooting I thought to myself, ``here we go again.'' The next day I had to go to school, in a similar environment of the Columbine shooting, and worry about someone coming in with a gun opening fire. Maybe one of my classmates, maybe not, but either way it was terrifying. How can our nation tolerate these inhuman acts of terror and why is this happening? This it too much for kids to deal with and I don't find it fair. Why should we have to worry about dying at school? I think that it is time, as a nation for us to put our foot down to these school shootings and do something about it. A very good way to start would be federal gun control laws. Something has to be done, because by the appearance of things right now, it doesn't look like much is getting done on Capitol Hill. I know that I hate watching these poor, innocent victims and their families as they are torn apart and traumatized for life. My heart goes out to all the families victimized in these school shootings. Then I have to ask you, how can you sit in front of the television at night watching the news and seeing all those horrifying pictures of the school shootings, and not worry about your children or grandchildren at school. You must fight back against all that is wrong and make it right for your kids. This is what I have decided to do by writing this letter. I'm hoping that everyone that reads this letter will finally see that the children of America are crying out for help and shelter from the crime and bloodshed. We want it stopped and we need help because we can not do it by ourselves. By passing stricter gun control laws and requiring the parents who own guns to lock them up, we can help piece this nation back together. Other parents won't have to worry if their kids are safe at school and children won't have to worry about anyone coming into their school causing further tragedy. We need to act quickly to stop school shootings from becoming as culturally accepted unfortunately as gang shootings have become in America. So please help eliminate the crime from schools and make them a safer place for kids of America. Sincerely, Karly Kupferberg. We can help Karly and my granddaughter Isabel and all of our children by closing the loopholes and passing the McCarthy, Roukema, Blagojevich Amendment and the Conyers Campbell Amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share an example of how banks and community groups are using the Community Reinvestment Act, an act now under attack, to expand access to the financial mainstream. Last summer First National Bank of Chicago made an agreement with the Chicago CRA Coalition to invest $4.1 billion in low- and moderate- income Chicago communities over the next 6 years. The bank recently opened a new full service branch in Dominick's Supermarket in the North Lawndale neighborhood on Chicago's West Side. First National began pilot projects in North Lawndale and two other branches to expand low-cast checking accounts. At the same time, the bank and community groups sponsored financial literacy workshops for area residents. In the last few months, dozens of persons who previously would have been denied the opportunity to open a bank account have opened checking and savings accounts, depositing thousands of dollars. The Community Reinvestment Act is under attack. Why? I do not know the answer to that question, but I know that what we should be doing is protecting, expanding, and strengthening CRA.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, far from putting parents in charge, as my esteemed colleague from Illinois has stated, his culture of violence amendment puts big brother squarely in control of the games, art, movies, books and other materials available to our children. No work of art, magazine or CD is exempt from government scrutiny. No sales clerk at Blockbuster, ticket sales at the movies, librarian, museum employee would be free from the threat of a jail term. In fact, even if a parent explicitly consented to the purchase of materials deemed to be too violent or obscene, that sales clerk is at risk. This is big government at its worst, supported, it seems, by the same individuals who rail against big government. It is intrusion into the personal lives of every American, a threat to educational and artistic freedom, a direct assault on the First Amendment, and above all, this amendment undercuts the freedom which is at the core of our American values.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey very much for the opportunity to participate in this discussion and look forward to the successful efforts for all of us on this floor to be able to debate and vote on a comprehensive Patients' Bill of Rights. It is hard for me to imagine that there is anybody in this body who has not received lots of mail from their constituents about the abuses that are taking place every day. I have been hearing both from people who give care, nurses and physicians, and people who receive care, who are seeking the care, the patients. I want to give my colleagues one example of a heartbreaking letter that I received. It starts, Dear Representative Schakowsky, I am a 31-year-old nurse with breast cancer. Because I am an HMO member, I have had recurrent problems with receiving health care. As a patient, I have not yet received compromised care, but I have been denied services or have been told where to get care and who could give me care. I recently also was made to change primary doctors, giving up one that I had for 8 years because of my HMO. I heard you speak on behalf of the Patients' Bill of Rights, and I need you to know that, as a health care provider and receiver and HMO member, I am certain that care is being compromised and restricted and refused to us. I am knowledgeable about the health care system, and I am still able to be my own advocate, but I am sure 1 day I will not be able to make telephone calls endlessly pleading for standard of care. Who will do it for me? Why do I need to beg for treatments or for the right to remain in the care of my own doctor? I am receiving follow-up care from my oncologists after having a stem cell transplant for metastatic breast cancer, and I am worried that continuity of care will be compromised. And I will only be treated if the HMO sees fit rather than being able to rely on the judgment of a physician who had known me for 8 years and an oncologist who has seen me every month for a year. I want managed care to stop making medical decisions. I have a right to health care. As a nurse, I also know that quality health care is the issue. Having cancer has changed my life. Having adequate health insurance was a wise choice I made 10 years ago. Today I am fearful that I have no rights as an HMO member. That is one battle too many for me to take on. It frustrates me so much after having received this letter, and it is one of many that I have received, probably one of the most articulate descriptions of the problem, that we have to go through such a cumbersome process of marching down and gathering enough signatures for a petition simply to have the right to debate this issue fully in the House. One would think that all the Members would jump at the opportunity to do that on behalf of our constituents. The only thing I can think is that the concerns of the health care industry, of managed care companies, of insurance companies has superseded concerns for ordinary patients and consumers in our districts. I do not think it is sound health care policy to force a breast cancer patient to give up a physician of 8 years. It is not sound health policy to force a breast cancer patient like my constituent to beg for treatment. It is not sound health policy for insurance companies to make medical decisions. It is not sound health policy for the United States Congress to delay action on preventing these abuses. We have a number of excellent proposals, H.R. 358, the Patients' Bill of Rights, and as a prior colleague of mine said, there may be many who disagree with that, but we certainly should be able to discuss a bill that has provisions such as providing full and fair access to specialists and to emergency care, giving patients the right to timely appeals, including the right to appeal to an external and independent entity, holding managed care plans accountable for all their decisions, including the decision to deny care, and letting medical professionals and their patients make the medical decisions. So I am hopeful that next week when we do engage in gathering the signatures for this discharge petition that we are going to have a majority of Members of this body, both sides of the aisle, who say it is time now, it is more than time now to fully debate this issue. I am hoping that we will be able to provide the relief that our constituents are begging for and deserve.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to celebrate the dedication of the Sidney R. and Addie Yates Exhibition Center located at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, IL, on May 27, 1999. The Center is so named because of the tremendous contributions that Congressman Yates and his wife, Addie, made over the years in support of the arts, humanities, and the environment. There is no greater champion of the arts, humanities, and environment than Congressman Sidney Yates, and there is no greater champion of Congressman Yates than his lifelong mate, Addie. In her own right, Addie has contributed greatly to causes close and dear to her heart. She spearheaded the wonderful exhibit, ``The Children's Wall of Remembrance,'' in the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, commemorating the nearly 1.5 million children who perished in the Holocaust. Through her efforts, hundreds of thousands of American children were educated about the Holocaust and expressed this learning by painting tiles, which eventually found their way to this, now famous, Wall of Remembrance. Congressman Yates' illustrious 48-year career in the House included saving the arts and humanities from drastic budget cuts in the 1980's, helping to establish the National Holocaust Museum here in Washington, DC, empowering the Department of Interior to safeguard more public lands and the rights of Native Americans, and protecting the Tongass National Forest from logging. The field Museum's state-of-the-art new exhibition center will be a lasting tribute to the work of Mr. Yates. Located on Chicago's beautiful lakefront, the Field Museum is one of the city's crown jewels. Since its founding in 1893, the Field Museum has been a leader in the natural sciences, conducting world-class research in disciplines such as anthropology, biology, agriculture, ecology and sociology. The Field's collection of over 20 million specimens, including its recent acquisition of ``Sue'', the largest and most complete Tyrannosaurus Rex ever found, serve to both educate and astound the visiting public. The Sidney R. and Addie Yates Exhibition Center will serve as a permanent tribute to the Congressman in Chicago. It will be seen by the millions of visitors who make the Museum their destination for cultural programming. The facility will offer new and unique temporary exhibits, such as the current exhibit, ``The Art of Being Kuna: Layers of Meaning Among the Kuna of Panama,'' which will instruct and delight visitors from Chicago, the nation, and the world. While we miss Sid Yates, we will never forget the legacy he left behind, nor will the millions of visitors to the Field who will gaze and look in wonderment at the exhibits placed in the Center named for Sid and Addie Yates.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today I join with my colleagues in commemorating the contributions of an outstanding former Member of Congress. Cardiss Collins, who served in Congress from 1973 to 1985 representing Illinois' 7th district, was a leader in so many ways. Naming a Chicago postal building after her is a much deserved honor. After losing her husband in a tragic plane crash, Cardiss Collins committed to continuing the fight for social justice, won the 1973 special elections and began a distinguished tenure here in Washington. Her six terms of service were then the longest service for an African American female. Cardiss Collins' career in Congress was highlighted by a number of notable positions. Congressman Collins was the ranking minority member on the Government Operations Committee, Where she chaired the Subcommittee on Manpower and Housing. Cardiss Collins was the first African American and the First woman to serve as Democratic whip-at- large. In 1979, Collins was the Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus. Congresswoman Collins' commitment to the people of her district and the people of Illinois was apparent even before she came to Congress. A graduate of Northwestern University, she began her career at the Illinois Department of Labor. She later went on to the Illinois Department of Revenue. Cardiss Collins' commitment to the American political system was also evident through her service as Democratic Committeeman of the 24th Ward. Again, I applaud the most honorable career and dedication of Congresswoman Collins. I am proud to join my colleagues in the Illinois delegation who share this sentiment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, said, ``This $15 billion bill is about helping people: American farmers, American troops, storm victims here in the United States and in Central America; and Balkan refugees will all immediately benefit from passage of this essential aid package.'' These are all laudable goals, and I support that. But I want to make the point that this $15 billion emergency spending bill also creates an emergency for the most vulnerable people right here at home. For those who are hungry and homeless right here at home, this bill is a disaster. What if the American people knew that, in order to fund these laudable goals and a bunch of other things in the bill, that we had to cut programs for the hungry and homeless and those who are in need of subsidized housing? The bill cuts $350 million from the Housing and Urban Development Section 8 housing program. The HUD says that the loss of this money could create the displacement of approximately 60,000 families right here at home. We are worried, of course we are, about the displacement of people in Kosovo. We should be. But we also need to worry about the possible displacement of 60,000 families right here at home because of this. It creates a longer waiting list of people who need subsidized housing and increases the number of families in need who are underserved right here at home. What if the American people knew that this bill cuts $1.25 billion from the food stamp program? I am told that this money is not being spent. Does that mean that there are not hungry people right here? No. In a 1999 survey of U.S. food banks, a report released in March by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), we discovered that 87 percent of the food banks surveyed indicated that requests were up in the last year. On average, requests for food assistance outstripped food available by 22 percent. The Midwest Antihunger Network reports that, in Illinois, that there is a drop of 15 sponsors of the summer food service program in 1998. This is a nutrition program for low-income children in the summertime. These sponsors cited welfare reform cuts in meal disbursement rates that Congress instituted among the principal reasons. So there are going to be children this summer who do not have food programs. This is money that is being cut from the food stamp program in order to fund this. What if the American people knew some of the things that were being funded in this program; that in this supplemental emergency bill, there is $5 billion in defense spending above the President's request, $26 million for Alaska fishermen to compensate for Federal fishing restrictions, $3.7 million to renovate homes for congressional pages, $3 million for commercial reindeer ranchers, $2.2 million for sewers in Salt Lake City for the Olympics, $30 million for renovations to D.C. area airports, $422 million above the President's request for farmers crippled by low prices. This is a piece of legislation that has many needed things and many things that we do not need and does create an emergency for our hungry and homeless people in need of housing and food right here at home.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot understand why my Republican colleagues are so dead set against allowing a debate on campaign finance reform. One hundred and ninety-three Members have signed a discharge petition asking that we simply debate, only Democrats. Not one single Republican was willing to sign that discharge motion. Americans know that special interest money unduly influences elections and policy. If my colleagues care about gun control, then campaign finance reform is their issue so that the NRA does not call all the shots. If health care is my colleagues' issue, campaign finance reform is for them so they can be heard over the HMOs and insurance companies. Ordinary people are wondering what the heck we are doing here. I urge the Speaker and my colleagues to do something to debate campaign finance reform now. Let us do it next week and get this bill on the floor to debate it.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, before Mother's Day, I joined with congressional women House Members to call on the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dennis Hastert) to schedule a debate on gun safety legislation by June 20th, Father's Day. What I am hearing from mothers and fathers in my district is, ``It is the guns, stupid.'' The tragedy in Littleton is just another grim reminder that gun violence is rampant, that our children are in danger, and that no community is immune from senseless violence. In my suburban community of Evanston, Illinois, alone I have been to three funerals in the last 2 years of children killed by guns in the hands of our children. For the sake of the millions of parents who see their children off to school every day, Congress must act. And there are sensible bills that we can act on. It is time to strengthen our laws to keep firearms out of the hands of children and to break the cycle of juvenile violence. I feel that I owe it to my granddaughter, Isabelle, and to all the children in the United States and urge Americans everywhere to send a message to the Speaker: Let us debate this issue.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, ``The crisis in American health care is real and getting worse.'' Those words appeared in an editorial today in The Washington Post, written by two distinguished scholars, former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and John C. Baldwin, vice president for health affairs at Dartmouth College. I hope my colleagues will take a few minutes to read about the state of health care in our nation. Dr. Koop and Dr. Baldwin pointedly stress that universal access to health care must become a national commitment and will require a national investment. As important, they argue against the idea that health care should be treated as a commodity, saying that ``(w)e must rid ourselves of the delusion that it is a business, like any other business.'' At a time when 16 percent of Americans have no health insurance, health care costs are skyrocketing, and medical decisions are made by HMO executives beholden to shareholders, bold solutions are needed. As Dr. Koop and Dr. Baldwin state, ``(o)ur problem is a failure of distribution, a failure to extend care to all of those who need it and a failure to recognize the importance of applying scientific rigor to the problems of broad-based health care delivery. If state-of-the-art American medicine were offered to our citizens in a comprehensive way, our levels of public health would be unexcelled.'' They also recognize that we can not continue on our current path, to spend more than any industrialized nation in the world while providing less. Correctly, they conclude that ``the movement over the past few years to turn health care into a `business' through health maintenance organizations and other stratagems has not worked to the satisfaction of most Americans.'' Indeed, it is time for a new direction. The crisis in American health care is real and getting worse. A record 16 percent of Americans now have no health insurance--a grave situation that will not be solved by conventional business models. Indeed, the movement over the past few years to turn health care into a ``business'' through health maintenance organizations and other stratagems has not worked to the satisfaction of most Americans. Frustrated, legislators across the political spectrum pursue the notion that legislative tinkering will solve the problems. But since the derailment of President Clinton's health reform plan in his first term--and particularly since the elections of 1994--the country has slipped or been lulled into a false sense of confidence that the real and worsening crisis in American health care can somehow be solved by implementation of ``reforms'' based on such euphemistic concepts as ``gatekeepers,'' ``pathways,'' ``preexisting conditions,'' ``risk pools'' and other impediments to access--all disguised as tools of efficient management. To be sure, health care costs have risen too rapidly in the past 20 years. Highly paid providers and administrators and exceedingly profitable health care corporations have played a role, though their contributions to rising costs have been less important than the effects of an aging population and the continual introduction of new technologies. But we must not abrogate our responsibility to make difficult choices in the vain hope that a ``free market,'' profit-based system somehow will solve the problem for us without our doing anything. If health care were a business, it would be a strange one indeed--one in which many sectors of the ``market'' could never be profitable. People with AIDS, most children with congenital, chronic or catastrophic illness, poor people, old people and most truly sick people could never pay enough to make caring for them profitable. Over the past few years, nevertheless, we have often heard that ``health care is like any other product; you buy what you can afford.'' Most proponents of this idea quickly add that of course ``basic'' health care should be provided. But what does this mean? Suppose two children, one in an uninsured family and one in a well-insured one, both developed leukemia, a treatable and often curable illness. What is the basic level of care each child is entitled to? HMO executives properly emphasize that their responsibility is to shareholders. That responsibility is defined in terms of profit and stock price. The volume and market-share considerations in this ``business'' require aggressive pricing. Sustained profits, in turn, require aggressive cost-cutting. This results, inevitably, in restriction of access and withholding of care. Both these things may well be necessary to improve efficiency and cut costs. But do we really want to relegate such decisions to analysts within the health care industry, or should we assert the public interest in these crucial ethical, societal and medical issues? We nod our heads when we are told that the percentage of our GNP spent on health care is ``too high'' and that inefficiency, the ``fat'' in the system, results in its providing less effective care than is available in other industrialized nations that spend a lesser percentage. But this argument is specious. The American biomedical research endeavor, supported in the main by the taxpayers, had led the world for more than 30 years and continues to do so. Attendance at any medical scientific meeting anywhere in the world confirms this hegemony and affirms the enormous respect the rest of the world has for American medicine. Our system is not a failure. The dramatic decline in deaths from heart disease is salient evidence for the phenomenal success of technologically advanced American medical care for those who can afford it. Our problem is a failure of distribution, a failure to extend care to all of those who need it and a failure to recognize the importance of applying scientific rigor to the problems of broad-based health care delivery. If state-of-the-art American medicine were offered to our citizens in a comprehensive way, our levels of public health would be unexcelled. Like education (also, in important ways, not a business), the public health is a national investment and a crucial one. Could we justify a ``privatized'' educational system that denied access to slower learners unable to pay--i.e., the children who need help the most? When you consider that we spend more on leisure than on health care (22 percent more just on recreation, restaurant meals, tobacco and foreign travel), is the percentage of the GNP we spend on health care really so inappropriate? The failure in distribution of health care is the product of our tacit acquiescence in the notion that health care access rightly depends on ability to pay. This idea has become, for many, a point of philosophical and ideological zeal. It is long past time we acknowledged that broad-based access to health care will be an exceedingly expensive proposition. We must rid ourselves of the delusion that it is a business, like any other business. The problem can be fixed. Forming a public consensus on this matter is a mighty and politically perilous challenge, requiring leadership and the courage to state that adequate health care is an appropriate goal for this country and a vital national investment. These are, indeed, treacherous waters. Can we get away from the cliches about ``socialized medicine'' and the hackneyed references to overly bureaucratized, centralized, inefficient postwar European health systems? As world leaders in science, business and organizational management, we are capable of something new. We should maintain our commitment to the advancement of biomedical science for the public good and couple it with the management skills that have created our vibrant, competitive economy, and apply both in creating a national policy of investment in health. John C. Baldwin is vice president for health affairs at Dartmouth College and dean of its medical school. C. Everett Koop is senior scholar at the Koop Institute there and a former U.S. surgeon general.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights sent a clear and loud message to Congress--stop the attack on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Enough is enough. I wholeheartedly agree. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights is an impressive coalition of more than 180 national organizations, representing people of color, women, children, labor unions, persons with disabilities, older Americans, major religious groups, gays and lesbians and civil liberties and human rights groups. In a collective voice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, once more, made it known to those who stubbornly want to believe otherwise, that the Community Reinvestment Act is a success. Since its enactment in 1977, financial institutions have made more than $1 trillion in loans in low-income communities. More than 90 percent of these loans came in the past seven years. As a result, neighborhoods have prospered, communities have flourished, small businesses have succeeded and the quality of life for many has improved. Today's Washington Post wrote, . . . Since 1977 federally insured banks have been subject to the Community Reinvestment Act, requiring them to seek business opportunities in poor areas as well as middle-class and wealthy neighborhoods. The law, a response originally to clear evidence of bias in lending, has worked well. It doesn't force banks to make unprofitable loans, but it encourages them to look beyond traditional customers, and it's had a beneficial effect on home ownership and small- business lending. Many banks share this view. John B. McCoy, President and CEO of one of the largest and profitable banks in the nation, Bank One, testified before the House Banking Committee on February 10 that his bank is ``working effectively and successfully with CRA.'' However, there are those in Congress who are attempting to undermine the success of the Community Reinvestment Act, either by refusing to expand it or calling for its outright end. I hope that my colleagues were listening today. The Community Reinvestment Act is a wise investment with a sure return. I applaud the efforts of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and join in their crusade to protect and expand the Community Reinvestment Act.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to share my remarks today on the current situation in Kosovo with my colleagues and the American public. The systematic campaign of brutality by Slobodan Milosevic has forced the United States and NATO to take forceful action. As the human tragedies mount--a growing number of refugees existing in desperate conditions, families being ripped apart, torture, rape and murder--the House considered important measures about how the United States should proceed. I joined my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in supporting H.R. 1569 to assert the constitutional authority of Congress. We made it clear that the President cannot commit the United States military to a ground war without the explicit consent of Congress. The House today made it clear that the President must first receive the approval of Congress should the nature of the mission require a shift in military operations. At this time, the President and his military advisors have not signaled a change in the current strategy of air strikes, but if and when they do, I want the opportunity to vote on whether or not it is in fact necessary to deploy ground troops to end the genocide. I cast a vote in favor of Resolution 21 explicitly authorizing the President to conduct military air operations and missile strikes in Yugoslavia. By doing so, I put myself firmly on record in support of the United States and our NATO allies in this moral struggle to rescue the victims of ethnic cleansing and to put an end to such atrocities. As an American who believes in freedom and a Jew who remembers the lessons of the Holocaust, I could do no less. Even as we engage in these air strikes, the United States must place the highest priority on exploring and implementing all diplomatic options to end the conflict and to redouble our commitment to humanitarian relief.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, today is ``Take Your Daughter to Work Day,'' and on this day Democrats call for action to make sure that our daughters can earn the same wages as our sons. As we go into the 21st century, pay inequity is persistent and real. Today women must work for 14 months to earn what their male counterparts earn in a year. We earn 74 cents to every dollar that a man earns. In Illinois, my State, it is actually worse. Women earn only 70 cents. Pay inequity hurts women and their families. Women lose about $420,000 in wages and benefits because of unfair pay practices. It is time to put an end to this very real and costly inequity in the workplace once and for all. Democrats, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Rosa DeLauro), and I am proud to have joined her, have introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 541, to help eliminate the wage gap that still exists between men and women. When my granddaughter Isabel, who is just 1 year old, enters the work force, I certainly want to be part of the solution guaranteeing that she makes exactly what her male counterparts make.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding his time. Tomorrow is Earth Day, and I remember well as a young mom in 1970 when Earth Day was established, and at that time, we really had an environmental crisis. We had a desperate need for passage of legislation to guarantee clean air and clean water. We had toxic waste sites that were crying out for something to be done. So Earth Day highlighted that. As a result, we did see the passage of this important legislation. We have made progress, and this is a time to really celebrate that progress. We now have Superfund legislation to clean up toxic sites, the clean air and clean water legislation, and we have a booming economy, and that is a surprise to some, not to me and others on our side of the aisle, but those are compatible concepts, that they go hand in hand, a booming economy and environmental protection. The environment really is a nonpartisan issue when one goes to a national park or one breathes clean air, regardless of whether one is a Democrat or a Republican, these issues are important. But unfortunately, over the recent years, it has become just that, and it is so unfortunate, even today, that it has been raised in a partisan context. It does, however, give us the opportunity, as Democrats, to celebrate our Democratic administration and all that it has done to fend off efforts to turn back the clock, if we look at what happened in 1995 when the Republicans actually allowed corporate lobbyists to draft attacks on environmental standards. Or when the Republicans passed bills that cut environmental funding by 25 percent, or what I really want to talk about for a minute is the regulatory reform bill that would have actually dismantled the food inspection program. In my district lives a woman named Nancy Donley, who, because of her own personal tragic situation, that is, the death of her 6-year-old son Alex from eating meat poisoned with E. Coli bacteria, created an organization. She turned her tragedy into an organization that will now fight to make sure that no other children die called STOP, Safe Tables Our Priority. As a result of working with this administration, and in particular Vice President Al Gore, the food safety initiative was adopted. They were able to defeat the so-called regulatory reform which would have dismantled the meat and poultry inspection system in this Nation, and actually pass new regulations that began in 1998, more sophisticated ways of inspection. That inspection program was really initiated in the Upton Sinclair days at the beginning of the century and really required updating, not dismantling. So we now have a more sophisticated system that is being phased in over time. It began in 1998, and the establishment of a food safety initiative. As part of that initiative I know that Nancy had, Nancy Donley, had Vice President Al Gore, at the announcement of what we call PulseNet, which is a new program that we have to track food-borne illness outbreaks over the Internet, so we are now able to link an outbreak of food poisoning in Maine with one that might happen in Montana, and be able to see that it is from the same cause. In fact, there was a terrible outbreak of Listeria, which is a virulent form of foodborne illness, deli food, soft cheeses, et cetera, last year that resulted in major recalls across the country of those foods, and has already proven itself to save lives. At the announcement of PulseNet, our Vice President, Al Gore, was there to talk about it as an initiative that would save lives. As we know, he has been the person who has figured out how to use the most high-tech systems to bring them down to protecting families and now protecting our food supply. So as we look forward to Earth Day this year and we look forward to the 21st century, I think we can be happy that we have someone who has been our point person on the environment, who has been an advocate and a fighter, and has implemented already those programs that will make our air, our water, and our world safer for our families.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on this somber occasion to pay tribute to the victims of the Armenian Genocide, and to remind our nation and the world about one of the greatest tragedies and darkest moments of the 20th Century. On April 24, 1915, the Armenian Genocide began. Within the next eight years, 1.5 million Armenians had been massacred and 500,000 more had been deported during the final years of the Ottoman Empire. They were denied their freedom, deprived of their possessions, and systematically massacred. For those who have spent years attempting to refute the facts or minimize the extent of this tragedy, the facts are indisputable. The Armenian Genocide is a fact, a disturbing fact. Those who deny it are guilty of historical sabotage, and just as guilty as those who continue to deny that six million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust in Europe. I am certain that years from now some will also deny the human tragedy and ethnic cleansing taking place in Kosovo today. Many survivors of the Armenian Genocide came to America in search of freedom. Their stories, passed from one generation to the next, serve as a record of the horrors faced by millions. Their stories will help in our efforts to ensure that history is not distorted and that future generations are fully aware of what truly happened. On this solemn day, I commend Armenian Americans for their contributions to our nation and join with them in paying tribute to the victims of the Armenian Genocide.