WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, today raised concerns about the way in which the federal government monitors and approves foreign investments in the United States. Representative Schakowsky emphasized that operations vital to the security of the U.S. should remain in the hands of the federal government, not foreign governments or corporations.

Schakowsky’s opening statement is below:

Thank you, Chairman Stearns, for holding today’s hearing on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and H.R. 5337, the Reform of National Security Reviews of Foreign Direct Investments Act, which we will be marking up tomorrow in Full Committee. While I hope we can reach a bipartisan agreement on the bill, I know that we both agree that it is time to reform the Exon-Florio process (named after the Senator and Representative who authored that provision), which determines what can be bought in the U.S. by foreign entities. Because this has direct implications for our national and economic security, I believe that it is one of the most important issues that fall under the jurisdiction of our subcommittee.

For years, CFIUS – the inter-agency committee that was formed to protect the U.S.’s economic well-being and national security – has been making decisions about what foreign companies can buy up in the U.S behind a shroud of secrecy. Under the guise of protecting the confidentiality of the potential investors, CFIUS has decided to keep Congress – including us, the Committee’s with jurisdiction over it – in the dark about its decisions whether to investigate, approve, or deny foreign entities, including foreign governments, purchasing within the U.S. I think we need to shift the focus of CFIUS back to the protection of America as it is related to foreign investment.

Under current law, CFIUS is only obliged to report to Congress every four years on the very narrow issue of whether any foreign government has a coordinated strategy to acquire U.S. companies that do research development or production of critical technologies, but has been shirking even that limited responsibility since its first and only report in 1994. Only because the press broke the story that CFIUS and the President approved the purchase of operations at six major U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World – owned by the United Arab Emirates – did the foreign investment approval process and problems with its reporting and transparency come to the front and center of our attention.

Although the Dubai Ports World deal was effectively ended on March 9th when the company said it would transfer its operations of American ports to a "U.S. entity," I believe that it is a telling example of why we need to insist upon a more open and informed process of approving foreign investment in the U.S. My opposition to this deal is not about the idea of an Arab country controlling American port operations. My opposition is that President Bush would outsource the safety of American ports to any foreign country. I believe that America's security is America's business. The security of our ports is an inherent function of the United States government. It's unacceptable that five years after 9/11, only 6% of cargo coming into America's ports is inspected and that we would further put our ports at risk by outsourcing their operations– or that of any other critical infrastructure for that matter.

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, a member of the Energy and Commerce, today delivered the following statement in the House of Representatives in opposition to legislation that would provide billions of dollars in giveaways to the oil and gas industry and open sensitive coastal areas to drilling.

Schakowsky’s statement is below:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4761, the Domestic Energy Production through Offshore Exploration Act. This shortsighted initiative would feed America’s oil addiction while threatening our coasts and eliminating one of our few remaining sources of fossil fuels.

Since President Bush declared that the nation is addicted to oil in his State of the Union speech, the President and the Republican Congress have continued to advance the agenda of their big oil buddies. This legislation would ensure that the nation’s increasing energy demand is fed with oil instead of investing in alternative energy sources and promoting efficiency. The United States holds only 2% of the world’s remaining oil reserves, while the Persian Gulf states have 60 percent of that oil. Feeding the nation’s oil addiction is a threat to the nation’s security.

This legislation limits states’ abilities to protect their environment and their coastal residents. The energy companies already have access to 80% of our offshore oil and gas reserves. This legislation eliminates a 25-year, bi-partisan moratorium against offshore drilling that protects beaches and sensitive coastal areas. This bill makes it more difficult for states to prevent drilling off their coasts than to allow it, and limits their power to prevent new pipeline construction. It gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority to threaten states with a loss of funding if they pass any law that restricts drilling. In order to reward the oil and gas industry, the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress will make coastal states and their residents pay the price if we pass this legislation.

This bill will not bring down gasoline prices in the near term or ever. Given the average time it takes to produce oil and gas from new wells offshore, no oil and gas would be brought to the market from these new projects until 2013. We have the renewable energy capability and the efficient technology to radically reduce our demand for oil and gas today. By increasing fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks to 33 miles per gallon by 2015, we could eliminate our imports of oil from the Persian Gulf. By spreading alternative fuels and biofuels across the country, we could radically reduce the largest source of our carbon emissions. And renewable energy sources like wind farms could be brought online and produce electricity in as little time as one year.

This bill will add tens of billions of dollars to our record deficit by subsidizing the same oil and gas companies that are reporting record profits. Already, every man, woman and child in this country bares the burden of $30,000 of our current deficit. Now, this bill would allow oil and gas companies to pay billions of dollars less in royalty relief, compensates oil companies for any delays in their drilling projects with taxpayer money, and allows the Congress to divert revenue for new drilling projects. Oil companies should drill at their own expense, not taxpayer expense, and the federal government should vigilantly regulate all drilling projects.

I urge all members to oppose this budget-busting, polluting legislation and encourage Congress to fight America’s oil addiction rather than feed it.

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) today joined fellow members of Congress and representatives of over 400 organizations in announcing strong opposition to the proposed U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement (OFTA). The Bush Administration requested implementing legislation for the agreement this week and congressional votes are expected as soon as July. Congresswoman Schakowsky’s full statement, as prepared for deliver, follows:

I want to thank Congressman Michaud and Congresswoman Linda Sanchez and our allies from so many important organizations, including organized labor, who make up the Citizens Trade Campaign, for their leadership on this critical issue. As a UNITE HERE! member and as a member of Congress, I am proud to stand with you today in opposition to the proposed U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement (OFTA).

The Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans are again trying to force passage of a trade agreement that willfully lacks adequate and enforceable labor standards. Democrats have called for such standards in every agreement negotiated by this administration. And each time, we have been disappointed.

And this week, in sending OFTA to the Hill for approval, the President has opted to send Congress an agreement in which he refused to include a prohibition on forced or slave labor. That is not our idea of spreading Democracy. And it is not how the U.S. best improves lives in the Middle East and therefore our own security interests.

We have seen the effects of trade agreements that are weak on worker rights. We have seen the misguided policies and unfortunate impacts of NAFTA and CAFTA and we know they will be repeated with the OFTA.

Nothing has changed except the geography.

In a country like Oman, where meager rights for workers fall well below the ILO standards, where the Sultan can change any law by decree, and where there are NO independent unions, Congress should be especially vigilant. We must ensure that any trade agreement with Oman or any country contains hard and fast labor standards. The Oman FTA does not. And we are not willing to sign off on this agreement based on unenforceable promises from Oman or an Administration that has proven to be more interested in the rights of capital then in human and labor rights.

This agreement’s supporters claim that it will encourage development and spread democracy throughout the Middle East. It won’t.

We know the truth. Those of us in this room, our colleagues in the Congress, and the over 400 wise and experienced organizations who have joined in opposition to OFTA today, have learned from our country’s mistakes on trade.

Like our trade agreement with Jordan, the Oman FTA will only further normalize poor labor conditions in the Middle East, hurting the hard-working men and women who need our help. A U.S. endorsement of poor labor conditions in Oman will only foster hate and distrust of the United States at a time when we all agree we should be building bridges, not burning them.

Democracy and development might go hand-in-hand, but both need to reach the masses to succeed.

If we do not provide enforceable and REAL protections for workers, the Oman FTA will make matters worse for Omanis and worse for American workers.

Thank you.

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Democrats today announced their plan to fix the Republican Prescription Drug Law – the Democratic Prescription for Change. The Democratic plan would provide a Medicare drug benefit that is affordable, simple, and reliable, by providing a benefit administered by Medicare that requires the agency to negotiate for lower drug prices, like the VA does.

Representative Schakowsky is an original sponsor of H.R. 752, the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act, which would accomplish those goals.

Schakowsky’s statement is below, as prepared for delivery:

In my years as executive director of the Illinois Council of Senior Citizens, I heard plenty of seniors asking for an affordable drug benefit under Medicare.  I never once heard seniors asking for the ability to sort through dozens of private insurance plans.  But that’s exactly what they got.  Instead of a simple expansion of Medicare, they got Part D private plans.  I’ve met and heard from many constituents – seniors and their children, friends and counselors – literally in tears about the complexity and confusion of this plan.

This program wasn’t crafted to meet the needs of beneficiaries or their doctors.  It was created by and for the drug and insurance companies.  Instead of bringing seniors affordable drugs, these companies have brought donut holes, late enrollment penalties, prior authorization barriers and confusion on both sides of the counter.

The Part D program is not in Medicare where it belongs.  You can’t use your Medicare card to get drug benefits.  You have to sort through dozens of private plans – or join an HMO – to enroll.  And for those beneficiaries who were unable to choose a plan before May 15th?  A permanent late enrollment penalty that increases throughout their lifetimes. But, as one senior said, if you think picking a plan was hard, trying getting your drugs through it. Under Part D, each private drug company decides what drugs to cover.  And guess what, a lot of senior citizens and people with disabilities aren’t getting the medications they need.

The June 5 American Medical News headline reads, “Physicians complain Medicare D decisions threaten patient care.”  It describes a urologist who can’t get authorization for both drugs his patient needs – even though they work in combination.  It talks about a neurologist whose Alzheimer’s patients can only get their medications if she fills out a form saying they haven’t had a decline in health. And it talks about Dr. Elizabeth Delesante, a psychiatrist in Brainerd, Minnesota, who said it took her 4 months and more than 200 uncompensated hours of work before she was able to get a Part D plan to pay for the right dosage she had prescribed as necessary to treat her patient’s schizophrenia.

We propose giving beneficiaries the choice of a benefit in Medicare.  We proposed a benefit simple enough that CMS wouldn’t publish errors in its own guidebook explaining the plan.  A benefit in Medicare simple enough for HHS Secretary Leavitt’s parents, who had to switch plans once they found out that the plan they chose (with his advice) would have eliminated their retiree benefits. 

That’s because Medicare works.  It is simple and reliable.  It is a shining example of how a publicly-financed and publicly-accountable system can promote and protect the common good.  Democrats have a Prescription for Change that would provide a prescription drug benefit that is administered through Medicare and that requires the agency to negotiate for lower prices.  This drug benefit wouldn’t make big changes throughout the year, like increasing co-payments or creating administrative hurdles.  It would cure the headaches that Part D has caused.

It is time Fix Part D and to create a plan that all beneficiaries can understand and that they and their doctors can easily use.

WASHINGTON, DC  - U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, at a markup before the Subcommittee today expressed her concern that the Right to Repair Act would not meet the needs of consumers and ensure that all repair shops had access to the information necessary to perform service on all vehicles. Schakowsky reaffirmed her commitment to legislation that would ensure consumers could take their vehicles to the repair shop of their choice, but expressed disappointment that consumer protections had been stripped from the Right to Repair Act.

Schakowsky’s opening statement is below:

As a cosponsor of H.R. 2048, the Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to Repair Act, I am disappointed that I am not going to be able to support the passage of this bill today.   

First, I want it to be clear that I believe consumers should have the right to take their car to any repair shop they choose.  I also believe that car manufacturers should make all the necessary repair information available to independent shops, just as they do dealers, to the extent necessary for repairs to be performed.  My position has not changed and it will not. 

However, last week’s hearing on H.R. 2048 raised a lot of questions for me and I am still waiting for answers.  I think that before we pass a federal law, we should be sure it addresses a real issue.  As you know, H.R. 2048 was drafted because we have been told that independent shops are not getting the technical information they need from manufacturers to repair cars and that, in turn, is forcing consumers to go to dealerships instead of to their familiar and trusted mechanic.    

So, I asked: “how many consumers have had problems getting their cars repaired by the independent shop of their choice because the manufacturer will not sell the information needed? Has the percentage of consumers going to independent shops been dropping as more cars with more advanced technology have been coming out of warranty – or are they still able to go to their independent shops?  Are there particular manufacturers that are worse than others and what are the facts to support that claim?  Why hasn’t this problem – if it is a problem – been documented better?”

I am still waiting for the answers to those and other questions.  While I have gotten a few anecdotes and a few numbers, I do not have enough data that demonstrates a systematic problem or that H.R. 2048 is the best approach to solve the problems that may be out there.  Because I am sincere in my support of consumers and independent shops, I asked that this markup be postponed so that we could proceed responsibly, but that request was declined. 

All of my concerns about the underlying bill, however, may be moot.  Chairman Barton will be offering an amendment to H.R. 2048 that is bad policy and a bad precedent.  Even if I had all the answers to my questions, this amendment changes the bill into something I could not support.  Mr. Chairman, your solution is now the problem.  

My first concern is that we, the many cosponsors of the bill, did not even know about this amendment until late yesterday afternoon.  We were not allowed to see it until 6:30 PM last night, less than 16 hours before the markup. 

It is also my understanding from my quick reading that this amendment would, in fact, roll back current consumer protections.  If consumers are having a problem getting their cars fixed today, this amendment would make matters worse by locking the courthouse door on them.  Also, the amendments to the FTC provisions turn the enforcement section into mere window dressing.

For the last week, I have made every effort to talk to all the stakeholders in this bill, particularly the proponents.  I have been trying to help them make their case for the legislation that I cosponsored.  As of today, their case hasn’t been made and forcing the issue with this legislation, especially if amended, would be a mistake.  Thank you.