Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, my remarks today come at a time of great significance to the Jewish community and the international community. This week we observed the days of remembrance, a commemoration of the Holocaust and a tribute to those who lost their lives. The Holocaust was a time of such incredible horror that it is often not taught to the young and some, because of how disturbing it can be, choose not to speak of it. I accept it as my duty to educate others about the atrocities of the past so that they may never again occur. The Holocaust was a disgraceful chapter in the history of humankind. The fact that the world stood by and watched, is something that I will never understand. What I will do, what the world must do, is to promise that these crimes against humanity will never again be tolerated. Today, our responsibility is again subject to a test. With the crisis in Kosovo, and the all too familiar images of families being packed into boxcars, bodies being discovered, and orphaned children crying, the Jewish community is painfully reminded of the suffering we have sworn to prevent. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the people of Israel for realizing the relationship between the suffering in Kosovo and the suffering in the history of the Jews. In the first ten days of Operation Allied Forces, Israeli citizens donated over one million dollars toward refugee relief efforts in the Balkans. Field hospitals set up by Israel have already helped to successfully deliver 7 babies born to Kosovar refugees. In Israel on Monday, 17 families of Kosovar refugees--the first of hundreds yet to come--arrived to a warm welcome led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara. Among those that arrived on Monday were Lamia Jaka, the daughter of righteous gentiles Dervish and Servet Kurkut of Kosovo, and her husband Vlaznim. Lamia's parents saved both Jews and religious texts during the Holocaust. David Berkowitz of Neveh Ilan, whose mother was saved by Lamia's parents who hid her at their home, was on hand for a tearful reunion. These acts are very important to me. They say that the lessons of the Holocaust need to be taught forever. I am thankful for the opportunity I have to commemorate the lives lost in the Holocaust and for the opportunity I have in facing the crisis in Kosovo to honor human life by acting to preserve it. I was touched by the remarks Eli Wiesel delivered this week at the White House which are included below. I would urge my colleagues to take the time to read them because they serve as testimony to our necessary involvement in the NATO operation taking place in Kosovo. Mr. Wiesel. Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton, members of Congress, Ambassador Holbrooke, Excellencies, friends: Fifty- four years ago to the day, a young Jewish boy from a small town in the Carpathian Mountains woke up, not far from Goethe's beloved Weimar, in a place of eternal infamy called Buchenwald. He was finally free, but there was no joy in his heart. He thought there never would be again. Liberated a day earlier by American soldiers, he remembers their rage at what they saw. And even if he lives to be a very old man, he will always be grateful to them for that rage, and also for their compassion. Though he did not understand their language, their eyes told him what he needed to know--that they, too, would remember, and bear witness. And now, I stand before you, Mr. President--Commander-in- Chief of the army that freed me, and tens of thousands of others--and I am filled with a profound and abiding gratitude to the American people. Gratitude is a word that I cherish. Gratitude is what defines the humanity of the human being. And I am grateful to you, Hillary--or Mrs. Clinton--for what you said, and for what you are doing for children in the world, for the homeless, for the victims of injustice, the victims of destiny and society. And I thank all of you for being here. We are on the threshold of a new century, a new millennium. What will the legacy of this vanishing century be? How will it be remembered in the new millennium? Surely it will be judged, and judged severely, in both moral and metaphysical terms. These failures have cast a dark shadow over humanity: two World Wars, countless civil wars, the senseless chain of assassinations--Gandhi, the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, Sadat, Rabin--bloodbaths in Cambodia and Nigeria, India and Pakistan, Ireland and Rwanda, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Sarajevo and Kosovo; the inhumanity in the gulag and the tragedy of Hiroshima. And, on a different level, of course, Auschwitz and Treblinka. So much violence, so much indifference. What is indifference? Etymologically, the word means ``no difference.'' A strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness, dusk and dawn, crime and punishment, cruelty and compassion, good and evil. What are its courses and inescapable consequences? Is it a philosophy? Is there a philosophy of indifference conceivable? Can one possibly view indifference as a virtue? Is it necessary at times to practice it simply to keep one's sanity, live normally, enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world around us experiences harrowing upheavals? Of course, indifference can be tempting--more than that, seductive. It is so much easier to look away from victims. It is so much easier to avoid such rude interruptions to our work, our dreams, our hopes. It is, after all, awkward, troublesome, to be involved in another person's pain and despair. Yet, for the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbors are of no consequence. And, therefore, their lives are meaningless. Their hidden or even visible anguish is of no interest. Indifference reduces the other to an abstraction. Over there, behind the black gates of Auschwitz, the most tragic of all prisoners were the ``Muselmanner,'' as they were called. Wrapped in their torn blankets, they would sit or lie on the ground, staring vacantly into space, unaware of who or where they were, strangers to their surroundings. They no longer felt pain, hunger, thirst. They feared nothing. They felt nothing. They were dead and did not know it. Rooted in our tradition, some of us felt that to be abandoned by humanity then was not the ultimate. We felt that to be abandoned by God was worse than to be punished by Him. Better an unjust God than an indifferent one. For us to be ignored by God was harsher punishment than to be a victim of His anger. Man can live far from God--not outside God. God is wherever we are. Even in suffering? Even in suffering. In a way, to be indifferent to that suffering is what makes the human being inhuman. Indifference, after all, is more dangerous than anger and hatred. Anger can at times be creative. One writes a great poem, a great symphony, have done something special for the sake of humanity because one is angry at the injustice that one witnesses. But indifference is never creative. Even hatred at times may elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it. Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning, it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for its benefits the aggressor--never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees--not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity we betray our own. Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment. And this is one of the most important lessons of this outgoing century's wide-ranging experiments in good and evil. In the place that I come from society was composed of three simple categories: the killers, the victims, and the bystanders. During the darkest of times, inside the ghettoes and death camps--and I'm glad that Mrs. Clinton mentioned that we are now commemorating that event, that period, that we are now in the Days of Remembrance--but then, we felt abandoned, forgotten. All of us did. And our only miserable consolation was that we believed that Auschwitz and Treblinka were closely guarded secrets; that the leaders of the free world did not know what was going on behind those black gates and barbed wire; that they had no knowledge of the war against the Jews that Hitler's armies and their accomplices waged as part of the war against the Allies. If they knew, we thought, surely those leaders would have moved heaven and earth to intervene. They would have spoken out with great outrage and conviction. They would have bombed the railways leading to Birkenau, just the railways, just once. And now we knew, we learned, we discovered that the Pentagon knew, the State Department knew. And the illustrious occupant of the White House then, who was a great leader--and I say it with some anguish and pain, because, today is exactly 54 years marking his death--Franklin Delano Roosevelt denied on April the 12th, 1945, so he is very much present to me and to us. No doubt, he was a great leader. He mobilized the American people and the world, going into battle, brining hundreds and thousands of valiant and brave soldiers in America to fight fascism, to fight dictatorship, to fight Hitler. And so many of the young people fell in battle. And, nevertheless, his image in Jewish history--I must say it--his image in Jewish history is flawed. The depressing tale of the St. Louis is a case in point. Sixty years ago, its human cargo--maybe 1,000 Jews--was turned back to Nazi Germany. And that happened after the Kristallnacht, after the first state sponsored pogrom, with hundreds of Jewish shops destroyed, synagogues burned, thousands of people put in concentration camps. And that ship, which was already on the shores of the United States, was sent back. I don't understand. Roosevelt was a good man, with a heart. He understood those who needed help. Why didn't he allow these refugees to disembark? A thousand people--in America, a great country, the greatest democracy, the most generous of all new nations in modern history. What happened? I don't understand. Why the indifference, on the highest level, to the suffering of the victims? But then, there were human beings who were sensitive to our tragedy. Those non-Jews, those Christians, that we called the ``Righteous Gentiles,'' whose selfless acts of heroism saved the honor of their faith. Why were they so few? Why was there a greater effort to save SS murderes after the war than to save their victims during the war? Why did some of America's largest corporations continue to do business with Hitler's Germany until 1942? It has been suggested, and it was documented, that the Wehrmacht could not have conducted its invasion of France without oil obtained from American sources. How is one to explain their indifference? And yet, my friends, good things have also happened on this traumatic century: the defeat of Nazism, the collapse of communism, the rebirth of Israel on its ancestral soil, the demise of apartheid, Israel's peace treaty with Eqypt, the peace accord in Ireland. And let us remember the meeting, filled with drama and emotion, between Rabin and Arafat that you, Mr. President, convened in this very place. I was here and I will never forget it. And then, of course, the joint decision of the United States and NATO to intervene in Kosovo and save those victims, those refugees, those who were uprooted by a man whom I believe that because of his crimes, should be charged with crimes against humanity. But this time, the world was not silent. This time, we do respond. This time, we intervene. Does it mean that we have learned from the past? Does it mean that society has changed? Has the human being become less indifferent and more human? Have we really learned from our experiences? Are we less insensitive to the plight of victims of ethnic cleansing and other forms of injustices in places near and far? Is today's justified intervention in Kosovo, led by you, Mr. President, a lasting warning that never again will the deportation, the terrorization of children and their parents be allowed anywhere in the world? Will it discourage other dictators in other lands to do the same? What about the children? Oh, we see them on television, we read about them in the papers, and we do so with a broken heart. Their fate is always the most tragic, inevitably. When adults wage war, children perish. We see their faces, their eyes. Do we hear their pleas? Do we feel their pain, their agony? Every minute one of them dies of disease, violence, famine. Some of them--so many of them--could be saved. And so, once again, I think of the young Jewish boy from the Carpathian Mountains. He has accompanied the old man I have become throughout these years of quest and struggle. And together we walk towards the new millennium, carried by profound fear and extraordinary hope. (Applause.) I conclude on that.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, thirty-nine million senior citizens and persons with disabilities on Medicare are relying on Congress to do the right thing. They are counting on Congress to save Medicare, a program that continues to improve the quality of life for millions of people. But they are certainly not counting on Congress to privatize Medicare and turn over the program to for-profit HMOs and insurance companies. The Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare debated such a plan. And that is the reason why the Commission did not have enough votes to make a formal recommendation to Congress. The Commission's proposal would have been a disaster for seniors and persons with disabilities and a boon for the HMOs and insurance industry. My recent remarks printed in the Chicago Sun-Times follow: The Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare nearly approved a plan to save Medicare. But a fundamental consideration was strangely missing from the proposal by Medicare Commission Chair Senator John Breaux (D-LA) and co- chair Representative Bill Thomas (R-CA): the detrimental effect this plan would have on the millions of seniors and persons with disabilities who rely on Medicare. The simple fact is that the proposal nearly passed by the Medicare Commission is a disaster. It is a disaster for seniors and persons with disabilities. By far the majority of the proposed ``savings'' under the Breaux-Thomas plan would come from pushing seniors and persons with disabilities into HMOs and increasing costs to those who want to stay in traditional Medicare. Under this plan, Medicare beneficiaries who wish to remain with their own doctors would pay higher premiums (as much as $1200 a year). Many seniors, who already pay more than 20% of their income for health care, would face even greater cost- sharing when they need home health and other services. And despite the problems older persons face in finding affordable insurance, the proposal would shut 65 and 66 year olds out of Medicare. Members of the Medicare Commission who supported the Breaux-Thomas plan seem to have faith in a managed care industry that cuts corners on care, reduces benefits, and threatens to pull out of Medicare altogether unless participants pay significantly higher premiums. Those of us who oppose turning Medicare over to the HMOs respectfully disagree. Privatizing Medicare and handing over the medical well-being of millions of senior citizens to for-profit managed care corporations is not what President Lyndon Baines Johnson and Congress envisioned back in 1965. HMOs are not the answer. They are the problem. As a member of the Democratic Task Force on Medicare, I join with many of my colleagues and experts in the field of health care to support the President's proposal to use 15 percent of the budget surplus to shore up Medicare. This will ensure the program's solvency until the year 2027. We also believe that Medicare is in need of improvement and that seniors deserve increased benefits. That is why we also support seniors' access to affordable prescription drugs and long term care, and a reduction in out-of-pocket expenses. Medicare participants now have the peace of mind of knowing that health care decisions are made on the basis of sound medical science and not on the financial needs of stockholders and managers. But turning over Medicare to the HMOs is a radical step backward that will only harm seniors living on fixed incomes. If this plan is adopted, seniors will receive fewer benefits, marginal care, and will face rising costs. The Breaux-Thomas proposal is not the answer.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Like many grandmothers, my granddaughter Isabel and I read books together, and some of them are counting books. There is one where there are these hidden butterflies. The trick is to find the hidden butterflies. The children in our country are those hidden butterflies. It is not as simple as one, two, three. In fact, in the Census we found that 52 percent of those 8 million that were not counted were children. This H.R. 472 is simply not intended to count the children. It is aimed at identifying not people but housing units. The fact is that 70 percent of the undercounted people, most of them children, were in housing units that had already been identified. What we need to be about is counting children. I want to say to my colleague on the other side of the aisle, there is no way that the mayor of my city, Mayor Daley, is supportive of H.R. 472. He, like the New York Times, feels that House Republicans are up to their usual mischief on the Census. One of their worst proposals is H.R. 472. Let us get about counting the children.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York, for bringing attention to these important issues that affect women and for drawing attention to the contributions that women business owners have made. It is true that women business owners now employ more people than the Fortune 500 companies combined in the United States. They have made great strides, but we know that women in the work force still face discrimination in many, many forms, both as business owners and as employees. Women in the work force today, as we enter into the 21st century, still earn only 74 cents for every dollar that men earn at the very same jobs. This persistent wage gap forces families into poverty and deprives them of the benefits that women would earn if only they were men; that is, if only they were men making more money at the very same jobs. This discrimination follows women into their retirement. Because they make less money through their working years, they have fewer private pensions and they get fewer Social Security benefits. Often they have less health care coverage during their working years, and so they bring into their retirement years more disease. They are less well. I want to focus for a minute on the issue of Medicare because now this Congress is engaged in a great debate on what we are going to do about Medicare. And I would say that while it is important for Congress to ensure Medicare solvency in the future, any proposal must protect women who receive Medicare. Of course, Medicare is a program that serves both men and women, but women comprise most of the beneficiaries. Elderly women aged 65 outnumber elderly men three to two. There are 20 million elderly women on Medicare and another 2 million women who are on Medicare because they receive Social Security disability benefits. In fact, 58 percent of all elderly beneficiaries are women. Seventy-one percent of the beneficiaries aged 85 or older are women. That is, of course, because women live longer than men do. Women aged 65 years and older are more than twice as likely as older men to live within 125 percent of the poverty line. That is to say that they are twice as likely as men to have to live on $10,000 a year or less, and we know how hard that is. Recently, older women were projected to spend over $200 a year more on out-of-pocket health care costs than men. And we know today that the elderly are spending a greater percentage of their income on health care out-of-pocket than they did when Medicare was enacted in 1965. This is a particular burden for women. One of the proposals that has been on the table that frightens me the most and should frighten older women the most is that of raising the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67. To underscore how dangerous that would be, currently there are a million people between the ages of 62 and 64 without insurance, and three out of five of those are women. So currently the numbers of uninsured people in the older age groups are mostly women already. Many women are uninsured because they are younger than their already retired husbands who are on Medicare and they do not have employer- based insurance themselves. Raising the eligibility would deny people access to health care during their early 60s and would expand their need for more complicated and expensive treatment in later years. There are many problems with some of the proposals that are on the table, but the reality of raising the age of eligibility for Medicare is that it would accomplish one thing, and that is, it would increase the numbers of uninsured people. Because employers are not looking for women aged 65 to 67 to hire and to provide health care benefits to, it would dramatically increase the numbers of people who are uninsured, and most of those people would be women. So I would say if we care about elderly women in the United States, then we want to make sure that we do not agree to any proposal that increases the age of eligibility. I thank my colleague from New York for allowing me this time to speak on this important issue.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). One of the reasons I really wanted to come here tonight was to be able to express publicly my admiration to the gentlewoman from New York and my gratitude for the work that the gentlewoman has done on this issue. It has really been an inspiration to me and a role model for me as a new Member. There was a time in the history of our Nation when certain individuals were not counted as whole people. Congress long ago rejected this kind of blatant discrimination, and every Member today would, I know, assert his or her abhorrence of this practice. But I fear, along with many of my colleagues, that in a far more subtle but also fundamentally destructive proposal we are again jeopardizing the full and fair counting of every American. What is especially disturbing about H.R. 472, which I was pleased to hear was removed from tomorrow's calendar, but what is especially disturbing about the legislation is that it is carefully worded to take on the appearance of making the census more fair when its actual intent and consequences are just the opposite. While H.R. 472 purports to double-check accuracy, its real effect is to prevent the use of statistical methods in the final census count. I come from a county, Cook County in Illinois, in a district that has historically been undercounted for one well-known and well-documented reason. We have large populations of poor, minority and immigrant residents. These are the people who will disproportionately suffer from being undercounted. John Stroger, Jr., the great president of the Cook County Board of Commissioners wrote, quote: ``Cook County is strongly opposed to H.R. 472. A recent study found that,'' and he quotes from the study, ``34 cities and counties lost more than $500 million in Federal and State funds during this past decade due to the undercount in the 1990 census. These dollars translate into meals for seniors, transportation and job training.'' This bill is one of a series that was considered in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, on which I sit along with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), which sound good but which I believe have the effect of cynically stymieing the use of modern scientific methods for obtaining an accurate count by delaying the entire process. None of the proposals, including H.R. 472, were given proper hearings. Had that happened, we could have heard Dr. Prewitt, Census Bureau Director, tell us that H.R. 472, quote from him, would interfere with and put at risk, unquote, the Census Bureau's plan which already includes review of addresses by local officials. We could have heard the National Academy of Sciences explain that the key to an accurate census is the use of modern statistical methods, that without this the undercount of urban and rural poor and minorities will persist. In fact, all of the real experts, the American Statistical Association, the National Association of Business Economists, the Association of Public Data Users, and on and on, the real experts whose one and only interest is accuracy endorse statistical methods as the most accurate. I have to say that in light of the positive spirit my husband and I experienced last weekend in Hershey at our bipartisan retreat, this bill is a real disappointment, and I am hoping that the fact that it was taken off the calendar for tomorrow is an indication that perhaps there has been a change of heart. It represents to me the reasons that citizens grow alienated from the political process. I see it as a clever manipulation of the system, as cynical census mischief that just happens to hurt many vulnerable people. It makes me sad, and I would hope that if this bill does reach the floor, that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in voting ``no''.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues and the people of Illinois' 9th Congressional District to celebrate the 178th year of Greek independence. Much like the United States, Greece's independence did not come easily. Greece had to struggle for several years in its battle for independence from the Ottoman Empire. The perseverance that ultimately led to freedom for Greece is a symbol of the solid character of her people. I am happy to commemorate the independence of a nation that has contributed so much to the inception and development of the United States. Our Founding Fathers drew significantly on the democratic principles of the ancient Greeks, and our representative government is an extension of their philosophy, values, and wisdom. Their contributions have translated into an invaluable gift to the United States and other nations around the world, which enjoy the benefits of a democratic society. Today we celebrate Greek independence and those of Greek heritage who are living in the United States. They have brought so much flavor and beauty to our country. In my district, the beauty of Greek culture is not hard to find. It can be seen in the work of artists, felt in the drama of the theater, and tasted in the many Greek delicacies that Americans have grown so fond of. Greece has been a steadfast ally to the United States since the last century. As we approach the 21st century, I look forward to our nations' continuing cooperation and our peoples' lasting friendship. Once again, I wish to congratulate the people of Greece and all Greek- Americans on this special day.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that this Congress today has decided not to overlook the anti-Semitic statements made by members of the Russian Duma. Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Russia. The resolution we are considering today demonstrates our concern and our commitment to stop this trend. For the people of my district, there is no option. Many are survivors or the descendants of those who survived an era filled with events that we must never allow to be repeated. The recent surge of anti-Semitism in Russia is dangerously reminiscent of pre-Nazi Germany. While we are condemning words spoken by Russian Duma members, we need to remember the effect just words have had in the past. The anti-Semitic statements from the members of the Russian Duma scare me. They remind me of how easy it can be for history to repeat itself. We need to act now to condemn these statements, to ensure that this country and the world never forget and never allow hateful words to lead to hateful deeds. This resolution also commends President Yeltsin and other Russian Duma members, who have spoken out against these racist statements.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the vision, tireless work, and unwavering commitment of the men and women of Prologue, Inc. For the past twenty-five years, Prologue, Inc. has provided an invaluable service to thousands of Chicago residents, especially in the Uptown, Edgewater, Lawndale, Woodlawn, Englewood, and South Shore communities. Through its high school diploma program, Prologue, Inc. has assisted hundreds of out-of-school youths and older adults to receive their high school diplomas or their GED. In the past fifteen years, Prologue, Inc. has provided adult education and English as a Second language classes to more than 1000 adults. Prologue, Inc. has also established an intergenerational alternative education program, and has provided community-based educational, counseling, and referral services for low-income juvenile offenders. Furthermore, more than 200 low-income families will have an opportunity to participate in Prologue's citywide welfare-to-work initiative. Through this program, families in need will have the opportunity to receive employment training and placement assistance. Prologue, Inc. is a champion for Chicago families. This community- based organization is improving the quality of life for thousands by helping to deliver a brighter future to those in need.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of Congress and as a mother and as a grandmother, I take deadly seriously the decision to commit the United States to the deployment of a missile defense system. I see this proposal as nothing more than the beginning of Cold War II. And for me it is not just about the money, and it is not just about whether an antimissile defense system works, although we have already spent $55 billion and we still have not developed a technology that will work, and it is not just about whether it is truly defense. The fact is that America's borders and ports are open to penetration at much less cost and much less risk. So even if we could develop a bullet that could hit a bullet, it still remains not the best and most direct route from here to security. We should begin that journey by canceling plans to proceed with the deployment of a national missile defense system, because it is in our security interest to do so. Then we could put more emphasis on measures to reduce strategic arsenals around the world. For example, we could apply some of those billions of dollars to programs like the Nunn-Lugar program to assist the Russians in dismantling nuclear weapons. Make no mistake about it, a military buildup, which is what this is, brings us closer to war. My granddaughter, Isabelle, celebrated her first birthday this week. For her sake, we must put our energy, our resources, our intelligence and our dollars into actively, proactively pursuing peace.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is true that because of wage discrimination during working years that women carry that disadvantage with them into retirement years, and that is why Social Security is so important. Also, as the gentlewoman said, the fact that it has a progressive system of payment helps to ameliorate somewhat the fact that women have these lower pay scales.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that the gentlewoman says that this is really an educational process because I have to say as I have myself been looking into this issue I have found so many really startling facts about the way that Social Security has changed the life of women and how women in our society depend so heavily on Social Security. As the gentlewoman mentioned, this is a woman's issue. Sixty percent of the Social Security beneficiaries are women. In my district, I have the largest concentration of elderly people living alone. Most of those people are women and they rely heavily on Social Security. We know that one out of every four unmarried older woman relies on Social Security for all of their income. That is a pretty startling fact right there. That we are talking about Social Security, everybody knows we do not get rich off Social Security and yet one out of every four women is relying on Social Security for all of their income. Imagine if there were any cut in that what would happen, how the poverty level would soar. We know that despite recent gains that women are still discriminated against in terms of income. Women earn 74 cents for every dollar that men earn, but in Illinois it is even worse. Women earn 72 cents for every dollar that men earn. Women are more likely to have gaps in their employment, and I did not know this but the average woman spends over 11 years out of the work force on average because women still bear the majority of responsibility for caring for children and family members with illness and chronic diseases. So their employment history is more spotty. Women are less likely to receive private pensions. Only 38 percent of women have pensions compared to 57 percent for men, and even when women do have pensions, private pensions, they are liable to be much lower. Women are more likely to be part-time workers, work in service and retail industries that do not offer pensions, change jobs more frequently and therefore they are less likely to be vested in pension plans. Older women are less likely to be wage earners. Another surprising fact to me, 37 percent of women beneficiaries have no earning history at all. The majority, 63 percent of women beneficiaries, receive wife's or widow's benefits on their husband's earnings. So what we find is that the Social Security system really does work for women. Social Security benefits that women receive are guaranteed for life. Unlike private individual accounts, Social Security benefits are safe, reliable, guaranteed for life. I think it is worth pointing out that never in the history of the United States has a Social Security check not shown up for lack of payment by the government. It may not show up for other reasons at the post office box, but it has never not shown up because the government has not issued a Social Security check. This is a totally reliable system. Social Security benefits protect against inflation as many other plans do not. Because of the cost of living increases that are built into Social Security, women have an anti-poverty protection right there. Private investments do not protect against inflation or devalued investments. Women live an average of 7 years longer than men. Private accounts place women in danger of outliving their accumulated funds. Under private accounts, women could live their most vulnerable years in extreme poverty. So I am just so glad that the President has made as a top priority using the surplus funds to make sure that we have a Social Security system that is going to be there when I retire, that is there for many of us in the baby boom generation who are worrying about elderly parents, making sure that those benefits are going to be there for them. As my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) said, as to our daughters, and our children as well, we want to make sure that into the future that women can rely on that. Obviously we want to see those wage gaps closed. We want to see women earning as much as men. We want to make sure that women can rely on Social Security being there when they retire.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. During the election campaign, I spent about 25 hours a week on the telephone, as they say, dialing for dollars, asking people if they would contribute to my campaign. Those are 25 hours a week that I could have been learning more about issues, attending meetings with community representatives, out shaking hands, going to grocery stores, meeting with constituents, learning about the real issues that affect people in my district and not calling name after name of people who might be able to contribute to the campaigns. But worse than that, it seems to me, what they want in a Member of Congress, when we reach for our voting card to put it in a slot and vote on an issue, I think what the voters want us to be thinking about is them, what is good for them, not making a calculation in our minds, ``If I vote yes, which of my major contributors is going to be upset?'' Or ``how am I going to explain this to somebody who has given me a lot of money?'' I know from being in the State legislature that unfortunately these kinds of calculations are made. I think anyone who says otherwise is simply not telling the truth about how it works in terms of money. And so I think that it is not only the candidate's time but also the candidate's vote that is at stake here.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I would certainly echo that. I would also say that the gentleman raises a good point about the cost of media and the idea that radio time, that TV time which eats up so many of the dollars that are raised in campaigns, if we could get more contributions from the public airwaves toward campaigns, if we could have some free air time on radio and television, that it would certainly help ease the need for campaign donations.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, representing the State of Illinois was the great Senator Paul Simon just for two terms. He decided not to run again, and one of the reasons he decided not to run again was that he knew that he was going to have to raise an obscene amount of money in order to be a viable candidate for the United States Senate. Paul Simon has been a paragon of integrity, a person who has represented the highest in public service, and decided not to run. And he would tell a story during the campaign about how, after a long day on the trail, he would come back to his hotel room and there would be a stack of messages, all those pink slips that we all get telling us who to call back, and he would look through that list and among them would be maybe four from people or PACs that have contributed a lot of money. And he said, you know, I just want to ask you, who do you think after a long day it was that I felt a priority to call back? Now, he was making an admission about how campaigns and how running for office really works. He said, yeah, I called those big givers back because, without the millions of dollars that it took to run for the United States Senate, all of those things that I believe in and that my constituents stand for, I would not be able to be there in the Senate. And it was partly that that drove him from office. I think what Paul Simon was saying is that money to the extent that it is a factor in politics imperils our democracy. Now, we have a number of opportunities this session to address this issue. I know that the Shays-Meehan bill will be up again, a bill that deals with the question of soft money, a way to get around campaign financing rules, and I support that. But there are other options too that I think eventually we are going to have to get to, the clean elections, clean money proposals, which essentially say that we are going to just take that special-interest money, those big bucks, out of politics. Now, we looked in the State of Illinois at how much it would cost each Illinois family per year to pay for all of the Federal elections within our State. And do my colleagues know what we found? It would cost about $5 per family per year to fund the elections at the level that they are being funded now, which is very high. We are talking millions of dollars per election. Well, it seems to me that 5 bucks a family per year to buy back our Government is a bargain. Why don't people vote? Why don't they participate? Because they have a sense that there is not a place at the table unless they put their money down and they have bought that place at the table. And all too often that is true and certainly in terms of access to elected officials. And that was that story that Paul Simon was sadly telling and all too often I think in the outcome of public policy decisions. Do people care about it? Do they care about how much they pay in their utility bills? Do they care who is polluting their air? Do they care whether or not their schools are of a good quality? All of these issues are influenced by big-money players in the political arena. Those are issues that they care about. Fundamentally I think we are never going to get to deciding on the basis of what is right, what is wrong, what is best for people unless we take the element of big money out of our election campaigns.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the good news in our economy today is the booming sector of women-owned businesses. We are seeing a dramatic increase. Let me give you a couple of numbers from the State of Illinois, my State. As of 1996, there were nearly 337,000 women-owned businesses in Illinois employing nearly 950,000, almost a million people, and generating $119.8 billion in sales. During the period of 1987 and 1996, the National Federation of Women- Owned Businesses estimates that the number of women-owned firms in Illinois has increased by 75 percent, and that employment has grown by 201 percent and sales have risen 252 percent, a pretty good record. In Chicago, we have the Women's Business Development Center, an organization that I have worked with for many years and watched the kind of nurturing they do of women-owned businesses. They provide counseling, entrepreneurial training, financial assistance, loan packaging, certification of women business enterprises, procurement assistance at the State and local and Federal levels and they also do advocacy on women's economic empowerment. The majority of the clients of the Women's Business Development Center are low income women. Fifty-three percent are women of color and much of their work helps women with self-employment and microenterprise development, and they also provide assistance to women who have formerly been on welfare. So we are saying that they are providing women the ladder of economic opportunity. In my own town, I have an example of a business that was assisted by the Women's Business Development Center. It is not really a very dramatic story but it is the kind of work that they do every single day. A woman named Victoria Fonseca came to the Women's Business Development Center in November of 1997 with a desire to open an establishment that is a wine bar, a bistro and a wine retail store. She had some experience in the business but had not worked for herself at all, had not established her own enterprise. She went to the Women's Business Development Center, who assisted her in developing a business plan and the development of realistic projections. The women's business development center packaged the loan for the Small Business Administration women's pre-qualification loan program, and they got that. There were many bumps along the road in finding a location, in finding a bank that would accept it, and all the way the Women's Business Development Center was holding her hand and leading her through the process. Finally, a location was found in downtown Evanston and it required redoing the projections to ensure that the original loan amount was sufficient. Finally, last month the Sustained Glass, an enterprise in Evanston, was opened up and opened for business and, again, is just one example of the many businesses that have been assisted by the Women's Business Development Center. So I would encourage support of this bill, the increase in funding, the increase in ability to access these dollars, so that we can see more good news for our economic sector, and business development.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am joining with Chairman Talent, Ranking Member Velazquez and the Small Business Committee in support of the Disaster Mitigation Coordination Act. This legislation is a sensible, smart addition to the disaster loan program. The Disaster Mitigation Coordination Act will add a valuable pro- active measure to the Small Business Association's Disaster Loan program. If enacted, this legislation will save money for taxpayers, communities and small businesses. By adding the availability of pre-disaster mitigation loans to small businesses located in FEMA's ``Project Impact'' zones, we will be allowing small businesses to avoid or at least reduce the damages they suffer from unpredictable natural disasters. By helping these businesses to prepare for and react to disasters better, we are also ensuring they are able to continue providing needed goods and services to the communities that depend on them. Given the unpredictability of their frequency and the severity of natural disasters, this approach seems more than reasonable. A 5 year pilot program authorizing up to $15 million a year in mitigation loans will permit the Small Business Administration to evaluate this approach to see if it is a less costly way of mitigating disasters than other fully subsidized federal disaster relief. This legislation makes sense. By making available low interest, long term pre-disaster mitigation loans that will be paid back to the treasury, we will be reducing the amount of emergency grants necessary to respond to disasters. Furthermore, by offering pre-disaster assistance, we will be supporting the efforts of small businesses that want to act responsibly and pro-actively. Pre-disaster assistance means saving taxpayer money, secure small business communities and a healthy economy. Mr. Speaker, this will surely be a welcome alternative to small businesses in our state of Illinois which has received the fifth highest amount of disaster loan money nation wide since 1989. I thank my colleagues for their consideration and urge them to support this valuable piece of legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mary Jeanne ``Dolly'' Hallstrom, a woman of undaunting spirit and a pillar of courage. Dolly Hallstrom began her journey of public service following World War II, and became actively engaged on behalf of children with disabilities. She founded the National Association for Children with Learning Disabilities in 1963, and was appointed chair in 1965 of the Illinois Advisory Council on the Education of Handicapped Children. She was elected a state representative and served two terms. Since 1991, she has been serving on the Illinois Human Rights Commission. Dolly Hallstrom remains the consummate public servant and a powerful voice, whose extraordinary and unselfish contributions on behalf of children, the disabled, and women is remarkable. Her life's work to improve the quality of life and to protect the rights of the most vulnerable among us is immeasurable. I am honored to call Dolly Hallstrom a friend and a mentor.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the millions of Polish Americans, the city of Chicago, the people of illinois and citizens of our nation, I rise today in honor of Casimir Pulaski, a patriot and military hero and the Father of the American Cavalry. While countless words have been spoken and many volumes have been written about Casimir Pulaski's life, I believe this contributions to his native home and his bravery on behalf of his adopted land are immeasurable. Casimir Pulaski was born on March 4, 1747 in Warka, Poland. He was a valiant fighter during Poland's war of independence from Russia. But for his distinguished service toward freedom and independence on behalf of his people and his beloved Poland, he was forced to flee and became an exile. He remained a voice for just causes and an unwavering spirit for freedom. That is why he joined in America's struggle against the colonists and fought along side General George Washington during the Revolutionary War. He was named brigadier general and the first commander of the American cavalry. For his bravery and service, he was bestowed, and rightly so, the title of ``Father of the American Cavalry.'' He paid the ultimate price for his convictions and was fatally wounded during the Battle of Savannah. Casimir Pulaski is an American hero, who fought for freedom, with honor and courage. As we commemorate this legend, I also wish to recognize the countless accomplishments and great contributions of Polish Americans to our nation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is absolutely right. And my colleague is talking about dollars and cents cost, and I think we have to have a much broader view on how we calculate that. My colleague also talks about the human cost. My father lived with me for 6 years before he died and was part of an HMO, and I cannot tell my colleagues the hours that I spent on the phone, the letters that I wrote, and I was writing as a State representative so it presumably was even easier for me, just trying to get him the care that he needed, getting them to cover what I thought that he needed that they eventually did and that anyone with common sense would see needed to be covered. What if I was not there to advocate for him? How much shorter would his life have been? How much more difficult would his life have been? These all have to be part of our larger calculation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I have been pleased to hear some of my Republican colleagues express a willingness to go along with President Clinton's plan to devote 62 percent of the budget surplus to social security. But what I cannot understand is why they would rather take the rest of the surplus and give a tax break to the wealthy, instead of protecting and even expanding Medicare so that it covers prescription drugs. Before I was elected to public office, I served as director of the Illinois Council of Senior Citizens, and I learned a lot about how hard it can be to grow old in America. Making ends meet on Social Security is not easy, even if one is pretty healthy. But if someone has high blood pressure or diabetes or heart disease or cancer, they could be in real trouble. As any senior can tell us, there are many things Medicare does not pay for, including prescription drugs. In fact, seniors today are paying more of their incomes on health care than before Medicare was enacted in 1965. Social Security and Medicare. They go hand-in-hand. Seniors understand this. The President understands this. Before giving away the surplus to the rich, I hope the Republicans will get it, too, and support our plan to protect Medicare.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this body expresses its fundamental values and its priorities in a number of ways. I feel privileged today as a new Member to have an opportunity to speak for the first time on an issue that so clearly gets to the question of what is really important to us, what are the priorities, what is most important? Without a doubt, the cost to business is an important consideration when we look at legislation, but H.R. 350 raises the cost to business as the most important. It raises it above all other considerations. It makes it a top priority, the only separate hurdle that we create. I rise to support the defense of the environment amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) because it establishes that in addition to cost to business, that we as a Nation are concerned about the cost to the safety of the workers in those businesses, the impact on the air that we breathe, the health of our citizens. The amendment would allow Members the same opportunity to raise a point of order to block legislation that would take away existing public protections. We can demonstrate our balanced view on what is most important to this country, what is most important to our families and to our children, by supporting the Waxman amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my opposition to H.R. 350. The Mandates Information Act, if approved by Congress would carry with it unwise and dangerous consequences for the people of the United States. The bill before the House threatens the ability of Members of Congress to protect our constituents from otherwise avoidable harm. This bill would derail our ability to provide for adequate and affordable health care for families, safe work places for working people, and a clean environment for communities. If passed, the Mandates Information Act would require the Congressional Budget Office to conduct a cost analysis on all legislation affecting the private sector. While most Members of Congress are certainly interested in preventing undue and unfounded costs to businesses and consumers, we should also be certain to evaluate the benefits that legislation will make in improving the lives of the public. As Members of the House of Representatives we have a responsibility to guarantee job safety, fair standards for consumers, health care for families and a quality environment. The Mandates Information Act completely ignores benefits and thus would institutionalize a one-sided tilt of the legislative process against federal mandates, regardless of any good they would achieve. The ability to protect the environment, health and safety of all Americans is surely of importance to the Members of the House. The Mandates Information Act could cause delays or even stop implementation of federal laws, simply because a point of order is raised against them, based on estimates alone. This is true even if those estimates are questionable, if the cost is minimal given the size of the industry affected, or if the benefits justify the action. I fear that with passage of H.R. 350 there could be a day when crucial legislation like the Patients' Bill of Rights could be defeated without adequate debate. Issues of importance to our constituents deserve enough time for a fair review and I contend that passage of the Mandates Information Act would prevent just that. This bill has drawn much concern from my constituents. H.R. 350 has also prompted organizations like OMB Watch, the United Auto Workers and the AFL-CIO to speak out on behalf of the working people and the families they represent. A bulletin I received from OMB Watch accurately states ``The point of order is the heart of the problem. For those wishing to undermine public protections, it allows them to say they do not oppose the subject of the bill, such as clean air or water or worker safety, and still vote to kill it by voting against the mandate that is created. It is a dangerous backdoor.'' OMB Watch goes on to say that: ``supporters (of H.R. 350) claim they just want congress to consider the costs of laws they impose. Surely Members of Congress are presented enough information from all sides to adequately consider costs-and-benefts--(which this bill does not address)--when casting a vote.'' The United Auto Workers believes that: ``the provision creating a point of order against private sector mandates in excess of $100 million is totally one-sided, and would have the effect of establishing a new procedural hurdle that would make it easier to block important protections for workplace health and safety.'' The UAW makes a valid observation that ``H.R. 350 only focuses on cost impact of legislation, while ignoring the cost savings or benefits that may be provided to workers and society as a whole.'' The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations submits that: ``H.R. 350 puts at risk laws with substantial benefits to society. While completely ignoring benefits of health and safety or environmental legislation.'' Mr. Chairman, I share the concern of the many individuals and organizations who have been moved to contact me in opposition to the Mandates Information Act. I urge Members to consider the risk we would be taking with passage, and that they join in opposing this bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, a 10 percent across-the-board income tax cut, what could sound more appealing, more simple, more fair? Hearing those words, hard-working American taxpayers start dreaming about what they could do with the money. Replace that beater with a new car, repair the leaky roof, send their child to college, maybe take that long-awaited second honeymoon. Well, forget it. The sad truth is that 77 percent of all taxpayers, nearly 35 million people, would receive no tax cut at all. A two-parent family of four with annual income below $25,000 would get nothing. So who benefits from that trillion-dollar tax cut over the next decade? Citizens for Tax Justice tell us it is the wealthiest Americans. Here is the deal. Taxpayers earning $38,000 get back $99. Taxpayers earning over $300,000 get a tax cut of $20,000. For most of us, this is one bad deal.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter to be included in the Congressional Record. House of Representatives Washington, DC, January 14, 1999. Mayor Jacqueline B. Gorell, Village of Skokie, Skokie IL. Dear Mayor Gorell: What a wonderful job you have done in shaping Skokie into the remarkable place that it is! You should feel very proud and fulfilled as you leave elective office after 22 years of service, ten as Mayor. Now it is your turn to enjoy the wealth of opportunities that you have brought to Skokie. You have more time to enjoy the world class library for which you were truly the driving force. You can walk the beautiful canal bank along with so many of your villagers who are appreciating the bike path, the sculpture park and the natural beauty which your vision and work made possible. You and Nate can attend even more excellent activities at the Performing Arts Center which is now your legacy. And you can rest assured at all times that you and yours are protected by a police and fire department that achieved a status that few other municipalities have reached while under your watch. It is no wonder that Chicago Magazine rated Skokie as ``one of the best towns around'', and Worth Magazine said that ``on Wall Street, it is a star.'' Those of us who have had the pleasure of working with you and observing your leadership are not surprised by these accolades. Mayor Gorell, thank you for all that you have done for the community. I wish you happiness in your retirement. If I can ever be of help to you, I would be honored if you would call on me. Sincerely, Jan Schakowsky, Member of Congress.