Washington, D.C.—U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) announced that over 1,000 contractors have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.  Congresswoman Schakowsky obtained this information after contacting the U.S. Department of Labor to request the latest numbers on contractor injuries and deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Under the Defense Base Act, claims for deaths and injuries for employees of federal government contractors are filed with the Department of Labor, which had received 1,001 death claims as of June 30, 2007.  Schakowsky released the following statement in response to this news.

“This is a sad, but significant milestone.  Until now, the American people have largely been kept in the dark about the true costs of the war in Iraq.  Although most of these contractors are Americans, the Department of Defense refuses to include their deaths in the total number of U.S. causalities in Iraq.  The Pentagon has reported that 3,668 Americans have died in Iraq when in actuality that number is much higher. 

I asked the Department of Labor for this information because the American people deserve to know how many Americans have been injured or lost their lives in Iraq.  Sadly, hundreds of American families are grieving over the loss of their loved ones while our government fails to publicly acknowledge their service and sacrifice.

The American people are not getting the full story about the role and scope of military contractors in Iraq.  Under current law, Congress can’t even get a straight answer from the Pentagon about how many contractors are operating inside of Iraq, and yet the American taxpayer is expected to foot the bill.  According to some estimates, there are as many as a 100,000 military contractors operating inside Iraq. 

I have been working to provide transparency and oversight to an industry with little oversight.  The use of private contractors deployed with U.S. military personnel overseas, in particular armed security-contractors, remains one of the biggest grey areas of the entire war effort.  My bill, H.R. 897, the Iraq and Afghanistan Contractor Sunshine Act, would let Congress get information about private contracts and require reporting of contractor injuries and deaths. I am determined to get to the bottom of this issue so that the American people can understand the full extent and true costs of this war.”

In May 2007, the House unanimously passed a contracting oversight amendment offered by U.S. Representatives Schakowsky and Price (D-NC) to the Defense Authorization Bill.  The amendment would create a database to collect descriptions contracts, including the value of the contracts, amount of overhead spent, total number of personnel employed on the contracts and other general information.  The Schakowsky/Price Amendment will make certain that Members of Congress will have access to this database and that they can request to view individual contracts.  Currently, Congress is unable to provide oversight of these contracts because they do not have access to them.

Washington, D.C.--U.S. Reprsentative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) spoke out against and joined the majority of the Democratic Caucus in voting against S. 1927, the Protect America Act, which will give the Bush Administration wide latitude in conducting warrantless surveillance.  The bill, which passed the House on August 4 by a vote of 227 to 183, had been requested by President Bush and was signed into law on August 6.  It will sunset after 180 days. 

Congresswoman Schakowsky delivered the following remarks on the House floor in opposition to the bill:

"This bill is an offense to the Constitution that we are sworn to protect.

Let me tell you what we are voting on tonight.  If we pass this bill, we are voting for the warrantless, that means no court order, warrantless surveillance of our phone calls, a warrantless collection of personal data, e-mails, and Internet usage, the evisceration of the power of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court, and making it little more than a rubber stamp for Alberto Gonzales.

Are these the principles our Nation was built on?  Our Founding Fathers knew better.  John Adams: ‘A Constitution of government once changed from freedom can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.’

We have Thomas Jefferson: ‘I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.’

And, finally, Ben Franklin: ‘They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.’

We can have liberty and safety. The House Democrats offered that plan. We should heed the word of our Founding Fathers and reject this legislation."

Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Representatives Phil Hare (D-IL), Betty Sutton (D-OH), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Steve Kagen (D-WI), Danny Davis (D-IL) and Hilda Solis (D-CA) today introduced legislation to reward companies that invest in American jobs, pay decent wages, provide good benefits, and support their employees when they are called to active duty.  The Patriot Corporations of America Act would provide a tax break to companies that make a commitment to American workers.  Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) introduced companion legislation in the Senate today.

“The Patriot Corporation Act would reward companies that invest in our nation and its workers,” said Congresswoman Schakowsky (D-IL).  “Americans have had enough of businesses offshoring jobs and skirting the law to increase their bottom line.  We must stop rewarding outsourcers and tax dodgers, and make corporations earn their tax incentives by investing in America and American workers.  Our bill will create a new patriotic corporate ethic in America that unites workers and their employers in the mutual goal of building a stronger, more prosperous democratic business sector to compete in the twenty-first century global economy.”

“For far too long, our government has betrayed the middle class while giving tax breaks to billionaires and multinational corporations that ship jobs overseas,” Senator Brown (D-OH) said. “Instead we should reward patriot companies that are loyal to workers and advance jobs.”

“When companies make headlines today it is often for all the wrong reasons:  fraud, tax avoidance and profiteering,” Senator Durbin (D-IL) said.  “Americans have had enough with a corporate culture that rewards bad behavior and ignores the well being of workers.  It is time for Patriot Employers to be recognized for doing right by their workers even while they do well for their customers and shareholders.” 

“Instead of providing incentives for employers to outsource and move their headquarters overseas, we should encourage corporations to be patriot employers that create good jobs with good benefits for American workers,” said Senator Obama (D-IL).  “Patriot employers help maintain American competitiveness in the global marketplace, while keeping our workforce and our middle class strong.”

 Washington, D.C. – The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection today approved Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky’s (D-IL) “Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act,” H.R. 1699.  The bill will now be referred to the full committee where it is likely to easily pass.
 
“This bill will help keep dangerous, recalled products away from our children,” said U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky.  “It will decrease the needless and preventable injuries and deaths by making the recall of children’s products more effective.”

H.R. 1699, the “Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act” would require that durable products for babies and children include a postage-paid registration card for quick notification of parents in the event of a product recall.  Under current law, companies are not required to include a recall registration card with their products.  In addition, actual notices of a recall are often dependent on news outlets picking up the story and spreading the word.  Schakowsky’s bill would correct this problem by enabling manufacturers to directly and immediately contact each parent who bought a product that has been recalled.

Schakowsky’s bill is named after Danny Keysar, the 17-month old son of Linda Ginzel and her husband, Boaz Keysar, who died when the Playskool Travel-Lite portable crib he had been napping in at his babysitter’s home collapsed. The rails of the crib folded into a “V”-shaped wedge when he stood up and he was strangled to death.  The tragic accident happened five years after the crib had been recalled.  Sadly, Danny’s parents, his caregiver, or the state safety inspector who visited the home just eight days before Danny’s death were completely unaware of the recall.  Had Danny’s Act been in effect, there would have been a much greater chance of saving Danny’s life – and the six children who have since died from the Travel-Lite.

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) today joined a majority of her colleagues in the House of Representatives to back legislation that would end the war in Iraq. The Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act was passed by a vote of 223 to 201 and requires American forces to begin redeploying within 120 days and to complete the transition to a limited presence in Iraq by April 1, 2008. Today’s vote came on the same day as the release of the White House Interim Report on Iraq, which indicates that the Iraqi government has failed to meet key benchmarks endorsed by the President in January. “Today, we learned that the Iraqi government has failed to meet the benchmarks endorsed by the Bush Administration in January.  Still, the President wants us to be patient as he pursues his plan for more troops, more time, more money, and more of the same in Iraq,” said Representative Schakowsky. “It’s clear the so-called surged has failed after six months, 600 lives, and $60 billion have been lost.” In its fifth year, the war in Iraq has cost American taxpayers $450 billion and new reports indicate that America spends $10 billion per month on the war in Iraq. To date, more than 3,600 Americans have lost their lives in Iraq and more than 26,000 have been wounded. “The American people have waited long enough and their patience has finally run out.  After years of chaos and bloodshed, it is time to bring our troops home.”

Washington, D.C.—U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) voted for H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act, which passed the House today by a vote of 273 to 149.  This bill will make the largest investment in higher education since the 1944 GI Bill.  The Act will benefit students and families at no new cost to taxpayers by cutting excess subsidies paid by the federal government to lenders in the student loan industry.  “While college tuition skyrocketed, the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress did absolutely nothing to alleviate the enormous financial burden placed on students,” said U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky.  “This bill shows that the new Democratic-led Congress is committed to growing and strengthening America’s middle class by making college more affordable and accessible for all students.” The College Reduction Act will: • Increase the maximum Pell Grant by at least $500 over the next five years, increasing the maximum grants to $5,200 by 2010. • Cut student loan interest rates in half over the next five years (from 3.5 to 5 percent). • Increase federal loan limits to provide borrowers with additional assistance in paying for college and to help them rely less on costlier private loans. • Guarantee that borrowers will not have to pay more than 15 percent of their discretionary income in loan repayments, and forgives loans after 20 years. • Provide $5,000 in loan forgiveness for those serving the country in critical public service jobs, including first responders, law enforcement officers, firefighters, nurses, public defenders, prosecutors, early childhood educators, and librarians. • Invest $500 million in Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and the Alaska/Hawaiian Native schools as well as the newly established Predominately Black Institutions and institutions serving Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. • Create TEACH grants that would provide up-front tuition assistance of $4,000 per year (for a maximum of $16,000) for high-achieving graduate and under-graduate students who commit to teaching a high-need subject in a high-need school for four years. Under the Bush Administration, the maximum amount for Pell Grants remained virtually stagnant for five years.  The maximum amount for a Pell Grant only increased $50 from 2002 to 2006.  President Bush signed legislation that cut $12.7 billion from student loan programs-the largest single cut in history.  The legislation imposed higher fees on students and increased interest rates on parent loans.  The bill also put billions of dollars in student aid at risk by cutting all of the critical funds to carry out and administer the student aid program.

Washington, D.C. –U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) released the following statement after President Bush commuted Scooter Libby’s prison sentence yesterday evening.  I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Jr., former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, was sentenced to 30 months in prison after being convicted for obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements to FBI investigators for his role in leaking the identity of a CIA operative. “I am very disappointed by the President’s decision to commute Scooter Libby’s sentence, but frankly I am not surprised.  This decision was not based on the facts or merits of the case; it was clearly political payback for being the scapegoat in the Valerie Plame affair.  The Bush Administration has been playing fast and loose with the law since the first day they took office.  Whether it’s authorizing warrantless wiretapping, suspending habeas corpus, torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib or revealing the identity of an undercover CIA agent for political payback, the Bush Administration has constantly shown a blatant disregard for the rule of law.  Instead of enforcing the law, the Bush Administration has defended and even rewarded people, like Scooter Libby, who have broken the law. I strongly believe that this is the most corrupt Administration in the history of our country.  At every turn, this Administration has abused its power, ignored the law and used fear to manipulate the American people for political gain.”

Washington, D.C.—U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) led twenty-two of her House colleagues in sending a bipartisan letter to President Bush today urging him to end his Administration’s policy of deporting undocumented family members of those serving in the military.  In June, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security began deportation proceedings against Yaderline Hiraldo Jimenez, the wife of Army Spec. Alex Jimenez, who has been missing in Iraq since his unit was attacked by insurgents in May 2007.

 

Following intense media pressure and public outrage, the DHS dropped the deportation case against Mrs. Jimenez, but the policy that allows such deportation remains in place.  The signatories of the letter are calling on the President to change the DHS’ policy and protect families of those serving in the military from deportation.

Click here to view the letter

Washington, D.C.—Last night, the U.S. House of Representatives approved $231,000 for the construction of a new Molecular Therapeutics and Diagnostic Building at Northwestern University, which Congresswoman Schakowsky (D-IL) requested as part of the FY 2008 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations.  This bill now moves to the Senate for consideration before it can become law.

“I am pleased that funding for the Molecular Therapeutics and Diagnostic Building at Northwestern University was approved by the House yesterday.  We are now one step closer to making this project a reality,” said U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky.  “This funding would ensure that Northwestern University would remain on the cutting edge of medical research in this country.  The new building would provide medical scientists with state-of-the-art facilities and equipment to conduct groundbreaking and possibly life-saving medical research.”

Northwestern University is constructing a Molecular Therapeutics and Diagnostics Building for important medical research.  The building would provide space for scientists from diverse disciplines who have a proven track record of entrepreneurship and accelerating technology transfer to the biotech industry. 

Washington, D.C.—U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) announced today that the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services approved over $1.35 million in federal grants for the 9th Congressional District of Illinois.  Congresswoman Schakowsky supported several of these competitive grants.

“I was proud to support these competitive grants and I am delighted that they were recognized by the Department of Health & Human Services,” said U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky.  “These funds will be used to help improve the health and quality of life for hundreds of thousands of Illinois residents.”

U.S. Department of Health & Human Service Grants:

Evanston Northwestern Healthcare
• $228,750 for Intra-renal Bold MRI: Application to Diabetic Nephropathy
      (National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases)

• $381,250 for Regulation & Function of Calponin
            (National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute)

Northwestern University
• $73,939 for Phonological Cascade in Speech Production
      (National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders)

• $209,780 for Parallel Gene Delivery for Spinal Cord Bridges
      (National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering)

Heartland Heath Outreach, Inc.
• $460,417 for Health Center Cluster
      (HRSA Division of Grants Management Operations)

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) welcomed Melissa Goldman, the 9th   ^{Congressional District winner of the 26th Annual Congressional Arts Competition, to Washington, D.C today. Melissa and her mother, Leslee Goldman, joined Congresswoman Schakowsky on the Capitol steps for a photograph before attending the Artistic Discovery ribbon cutting ceremony. Melissa’s artwork entitled Hey Kool! will be on display in the U.S. Capitol next to winners from 49 other states.}

^{"I am delighted that Melissa and her mother were able to come out to Washington to attend the special ribbon cutting ceremony," said U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky. "I am honored to have Melissa’s artwork represent the 9th Congressional District in the U.S. Capitol. Millions of visitors, staffers and elected officials will view Melissa’s artwork on their way to and from the Capitol."}

^{On May 5th, Congresswoman Schakowsky announced the winners of the 26th Annual Congressional Arts Competition, An Artistic Discovery, at an award ceremony in the Skokie Public Library. Schakowsky praised the talent of local student artists and announced that the first-place entry would be displayed for a full year in the Capitol.} 

^{The winners of the 2007 competition from Illinois’ 9th Congressional District are:}

^{Melissa Goldman, Niles West High School-Hey Kool! (1st Place Winner)
Maya Koenig, Niles North High School-Bracha’s Burma
Lydia Nieves, Mather High School-Color Me Red         
Audrey Kolodziej, Niles West High School-Untitled
Amanda Rachmaciej, Resurrection High School-John}

^{"I am very impressed by the creativity and skill of all of the students from the 9th Congressional District of Illinois that participated in this year’s art competition," U.S. Representative Schakowsky.  "Although there is only one first place winner, I truly believe that every one of the students that submitted artwork is a winner."}

^{Celebrating its 26th Anniversary in 2007, An Artistic Discovery is an annual competition held in each of the 435 Congressional Districts, created to highlight the importance of art education by recognizing outstanding talented young artists across America.} 

Washington, D.C.—U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) released the following statement today after the Senate failed to end debate and advance immigration reform legislation for a final vote. The Senate measure, which failed by a vote of 46 to 53, fell 14 votes short of the 60 that are needed to advance the bill.

"I am very disappointed that the Senate Republicans decided to filibuster the immigration reform bill today. Instead of addressing our nation’s dysfunctional immigration system, Senate Republicans voted in support of the status quo, which leaves over 12 million undocumented immigrants in the dark and fearing deportation, and allows our porous borders to remain insecure.

This is also a huge setback for thousands of residents in my district who are desperate for comprehensive immigration reform that would allow them to come out of the shadows to become full and active participants in our society. Over the past few weeks, hundreds of my constituents have traveled to Washington to beg Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Instead of hearing their pleas, the President and the Senate Republicans let them down by taking away their chance to achieve the American Dream.

Today’s vote in the Senate is a direct result of the President’s failed leadership. The President repeatedly promised the American people that he would pass a strong, bipartisan immigration reform bill. The President’s inability to muster the requisite 60 votes, let alone a simple majority, just shows how ineffective and incompetent the President is on this issue and on a wide range of other issues, including Iraq.

While the Senate’s immigration bill was far from perfect, it provided us with a starting point to address this critical issue. We are now faced with the real possibility that the problems with our immigration system and border security will not be dealt with until after the 2008 election. This is completely unacceptable and the American people demand that Congress and the President work together to solve this critical issue immediately."

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) applauded the passage of the FY 2008 Interior-Environment Appropriations.  The bill, which passed by a vote of 272 to 155, includes support for programs to clean hazardous waste sites, ensures every American has clean water to drink, and protect our natural treasures.

“I am delighted that the Democratic-led Congress took action today to protect our environment and reduce global warming,” said U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky.  “We finally have a Congress that is genuinely concerned about protecting our environment.  I proudly supported this legislation because it will help rid our communities of environmental hazards, provide clean water and preserve and improve our national parks.”

The 2008 Interior and the Environment Appropriations bill includes new resources and support for environmental and conservation programs including:

• Funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which supports projects that improve drinking water quality in communities across America.
• Sewer and Water Grants to support the construction and improvement of water systems in local communities.
• New resources for the Superfund hazardous waste clean-up program.

The legislation also makes climate change research a key priority, boosting federal investment in climate change research at Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Interior Department by 53 percent. Additionally, the bill responds to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in April by compelling the Environmental Protection Agency to begin developing a process for regulating greenhouse gases. 

“Climate change is a serious threat to our environment and our nation,” added Representative Schakowsky. “The important research supported in this legislation is essential to reducing global climate change and responding to this global challenge.”

Finally, the bill includes new resources to support the preservation and protection of America’s natural treasures. In addition to making the improvement of National Parks a top priority, the legislation increases funding for National Wildlife Refuges, rejects proposed cuts to the National Forest Service and supports wildfire preparedness and suppression programs.

Washington, D.C.--U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) delivered the following remarks on the House floor to celebrate the 35th anniversary of Title IX.

"June 23, 2007 marked a significant event in American history; the 35th Anniversary of the passage of Title IX of the Higher Education Act.  In celebrating the 35th anniversary of the Title IX law, I am pleased to honor the principle of equal opportunity before the law and applaud the amazing contributions made by women.

Title IX's impact on college sports has been well documented.  However, its influence on women extends well beyond the playing field and into the classroom.  When the law was passed in 1972, 46 percent of female high school students enrolled in college immediately after graduating.  In 2005, that figure had risen to 70 percent and the share of bachelor's degrees earned by women had increased from 44 to 57 percent.

Title IX has also affected my life in a very personal way.  I have seen how Title IX has changed the experiences of the women in my own family.  When I was in school, there was no Title IX and opportunities were limited. When my daughter, Mary, was in school, Title IX was in its infancy, but it opened the door to her and her classmates to a number of options in not only sports, but careers as well.  I am so excited that now that my granddaughters, Isabel, Lucy, and Eve are growing up in a time when a whole new world is available to them. 

As a member of Congress I am dedicated to ensuring that Title IX remains in tact.  We have made great progress as a nation in the last 35 years; however, we must make certain that Title IX remains a bedrock principle in America.  The progress we have seen in the country is just the beginning."

Washington, D.C.—U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky delivered the following remarks on the House floor to congratulate the 2007 graduating class of Senn High School.

"Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the 2007 graduating class of Senn High School. At a time when immigration reform is at the forefront of America’s conscience it is important that we take a moment to recognize the important role immigrants have played in the growth of this country and the vital part they will continue to have in our development as a society.

The graduates of Senn High School represent this bright future. Demonstrating that the American dream is alive and well, the graduating class is made up students from 60 different countries and speaks 46 different languages. The diversity and richness that these students bring from their families’ culture adds so much to our community.

Like so many Americans, I am a first-generation American and I believe that we need to continue our tradition of welcoming immigrant groups from all over the world into our communities.  I am so very proud of each and every one of these exemplary graduates, many of whom, in addition to be the first in the family to graduate from high school, plan to attend college as well.

Madam Speaker, as we continue to debate the merits of immigration reform, I hope that we will not lose sight of what is truly important, and that is the profound impact that immigrants have on all of us, making this country a richer and better place to live. Thank you."

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) applauded the passage of the Lowey amendment to the FY 2008 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations.  The Lowey amendment, which passed the House by a vote of 223 to 201, will reduce abortions, unintended pregnancies and combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic worldwide. 

“I am pleased the House passed legislation last night in favor of common-sense family planning to prevent abortions, curb unintended pregnancies, save the lives of mothers, and fight the HIV/AIDS epidemic,” said U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky.  “This amendment finally lifts the ban on providing life-saving contraceptives to men and women in poor countries to prevent unintended and dangerous pregnancies.”

In 1984, President Reagan announced the Mexico City Policy, which required NGOs to agree as a condition of their receipt of U.S. funds that they would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.  The Mexico City Policy was rescinded in January1993, but then President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in January 2001.

Last night, the House approved an amendment introduced by Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) that allows international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which do not comply with the Mexico City Policy to receive donated contraceptives for millions of men and women who desperately need them.  Providing contraceptives could prevent 52 million unwanted pregnancies; an estimated 29 million abortions; 142,000 pregnancy-related deaths; and 505,000 children from losing their mothers in just one year.

“I urge the Senate to preserve this provision and the President to this bill into law to give the poorest of the poor around the world access to life-saving contraceptives,” said Congresswoman Schakowsky.  “We should allow people to have access to the same family planning practices in the third world that we use in our own country.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.— The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health today passed Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky's (D-IL) amendment to drug safety legislation. Schakowsky's amendment will increase public awareness of the MedWatch program, one of FDA's best tools for tracking adverse effects of prescriptions drugs once they are in the consumer market. 

The amendment requires that all direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs on television, radio, newspapers and magazines include the following statement, "You are encouraged to report adverse effects of prescription drug medication.  Log onto www.fda.gov/Medwatch or call 1-800-FDA-1088.”

Congresswoman Schakowsky delivered the following remarks during the Health Subcommittee markup.

“I offer this amendment as a common sense way to improve awareness of the MedWatch program which poses great potential to improve FDA’s monitoring of adverse drug events in the consumer market, but which remains widely unheard of among people who take prescription drugs and their families. 

Last October, Congressman Dan Burton wrote to FDA Commissioner Andrew C. von Eschenbach to express his concerns over the lack of awareness of how to report an adverse event to FDA.  He wrote that in June of 2006, a national survey by In Touch Media Group found that 9 out of 10 Americans were completely unaware of the existence of MedWatch.  This lack of awareness is scary and it is unacceptable.

Back in December of 20024, Congressman Ed Markey wrote to FDA expressing his concern that the public was not aware of the Medwatch program or how to submit their own adverse reaction reports.  He asked, “On average, how many adverse event reports does the FDA receive per year?”  The FDA responded that an average of 300,000 adverse experience reports were received by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). 

Ninety percent of these reports are mandatory periodic reports from pharmaceutical companies.  FDA failed to mention that only 2.3% of the total amount of adverse event reports was sent from consumers.

Adverse drug and device reactions (ADRs) account for as many as 100,000 deaths annually (according to the Journal of the American Medical Association).  While drugs go through clinical trials prior to approval at FDA, not all serious side effects will be apparent during those trials.  Many will not materialize until many months after they’ve gone on the market. 

While consumer reports are not intended to replace scientific review of a particular drug, they can serve as a quick signal alert to the FDA on where to direct post-marketing surveillance of those medications causing high adverse reactions in the consumer market.

That’s why it’s so important that information is collected from those who are taking prescription drugs – as well as their families so that the adverse events we saw with Vioxx and Avandia are not happening “in a vacuum.”  The FDA’s own guidelines on Medwatch encourage consumers and their families to report side effects to prescription drugs to the FDA so these can be utilized in determining drug safety.  But consumers are not largely aware of the Medwatch system, and doctors aren’t required to submit them.

This amendment, which would supplement the additional safety measures within the REMS section, would require that all DTC ads include the following language: “You are encouraged to report adverse effects of prescription drug medication.  Log onto www.fda.gov/Medwatch or call 1-800-FDA-1088.”

This is a straight forward amendment that would greatly improve FDA’s adverse events reporting system (MedWatch) by allowing consumers to participate in the post market surveillance of prescription drugs, a key factor for the FDA to direct scientific review and quickly determine risk factors one a drug is on the market.  I urge my colleagues to support it.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) hailed the passage of H.R 2642, the 2008 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill.  This legislation provides $64.7 billion for America’s veterans and armed forces, which is the largest single increase in benefits in the 77 year history of the Veterans Administration.

“Under the new Democratic Leadership, Congress fulfilled its commitment and promise to our nation’s veterans and armed forces today by providing historic increases in funding to improve their health care and benefits,” said U.S. Representative Schakowsky.  “I am delighted that we were able to pass a bill that is worthy of the service and sacrifice that these brave men and women in uniform have made to our country.”

The Military Construction and Veterans Appropriations Bill:

• Increases the VA budget by $6.7 billion above the FY07 level and $3.8 billion above the President’s request.
• Ensures quality health care for 5.8 million patients, including about 263,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, which the VA will treat in FY08.
• Significantly reduces the 400,000 claims backlog for veterans waiting for disability and other benefits by adding more than 1,100 new claims processors.
• Provides increased funding for maintenance of VA health care facilities to prevent a Walter Reed-type scandal from occurring again.
• Provides $2.9 billion in military housing and $2.8 billion to increase the size of the Army by 65,000, the Marine Corps by 27,000, and the Guard and Reserve by 9,200 over the next five years.

This bill was strongly supported by all the major veterans groups, including Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, Disabled Veterans of America, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Military Officers Association of America, Association of the United States Army, National Association for Uniformed Services, and AMVets.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) delivered the following remarks at a press conference in opposition to the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.  Congresswoman Schakowsky joined Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA), Linda Sanchez (D-CA), and Phil Hare (D-IL) and union and human rights leaders to speak out against the human rights abuses in .

 

“Like other members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, I am extremely committed to helping .  I have traveled there several times, seen farmers struggling to maintain their businesses, trade unionists grappling with the fear of assassination, flower workers fighting against unfair labor practices, and talked to people throughout the country who hope that will prosper economically and socially. 

 

 

President Uribe is in Washington again to join the Bush Administration’s call for approval of the free trade agreement and Plan . But neither the trade agreement or approval of another Plan Colombia will help the , or the citizens of . Those proposals will only continue failed policies that will destroy Colombian subsistence agriculture, encourage the growth of coca, and ignore ’s tragic record of trade unionist killings.  And they will only contribute to job loss and the increasing trade deficit in the .

 

 

President Uribe’s efforts are too little too late for congressional consideration of a free trade agreement with this year.  Mr. Uribe has been in office since 2002.  Five years later, retains the unwelcome distinction of having more trade unionists murdered than in the rest of the world combined.  And the number of trade unionists killed in 2006 is higher than it was in 2005, up to 72 trade unionists murdered last year from the 70 murdered the year before. 

 

 

Even more alarming is the failure of the Uribe government to prosecute those responsible for the murders.  Although Uribe’s administration seems to have finally recognized that the continuing high level of violence against trade unionists in constitutes a major road block to congressional approval of the Colombia FTA, they have failed to stop the killings, or prosecute those involved.

 

 

According to an April 2007 report from the government’s Ministry of Social Protection, only 37 unionist murder cases have been resolved in the past five years, out of over 2,000 pending cases.  A close examination of the report is even more disturbing: there have been only 10 convictions for the over 400 trade unionists murdered since Mr. Uribe took office.  And the trends are negative: in the past two years, the annual number of convictions has declined by 25 percent.   Only two convictions have been obtained for the 236 trade unionists murdered in the last three years.  Just two.

 

 

Assassinations of trade unionists and the lack of prosecution of those crimes are the most obvious expressions of worker rights violations in , but not the only ones.  One of Mr. Uribe’s first acts as President was to axe the government’s Labor Department, merging it with another department and sending a very clear message about his lack of commitment to worker rights.  The new department, the Ministry of Social Protection, routinely rejects union applications for legal recognition while turning a blind eye to rampant anti-union behavior by employers.

 

 

Take one prominent industry: cut flowers. Despite many attempts in the past five years, workers have been unable to negotiate a single collective bargaining agreement between an employer and an independent union.  Flower workers who seek to organize an independent union are frequently fired, threatened and discriminated against, aided and abetted by the Ministry of Social Protection.  Ironically, flower exports to the receive duty-free benefits under the Andean Trade Partnership Act, benefits that are by law conditioned on taking steps to improve respect for worker rights.

 

 

The time for promises, pledges and even redeployment of resources is past.  We cannot consider a trade agreement with without concrete results. 

 

 

More broadly, the Colombian government must address the widening scandal of connections between the brutal paramilitaries and government officials, most from Mr. Uribe’s own party.  14 government officials have been charged with aiding paramilitary groups, with another dozen under investigation.  Mr. Uribe must back the courageous actions of ’s Supreme Court in opening investigations into these connections, and his government must provide protection to the judges, witnesses, and victims who are bravely helping to construct the truth. To help tackle this challenge, I support ongoing assistance to that is refocused on strengthening the justice system and supporting the victims of the conflict.

 

 

Mr. Uribe has come back to Washington too soon.  Come back next year, Mr. Uribe, and let’s see what has actually been accomplished in investigating and prosecuting political and military leaders who have collaborated with brutal paramilitaries.  Come back next year, and let’s see what has been accomplished in reducing the 98% plus rate of impunity, in dramatically lowering the level of violence against trade unionists, and in meeting international worker rights standards.  The Colombian government can pay for all the high-priced lobbyists it wants to push for a US-Colombia free trade agreement, but until they take concrete steps to make a safe place for workers and to separate their government from paramilitary organizations, we will not waver in our opposition to the agreement.”

 

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) delivered the following remarks on the House floor today in support of H.R. 964, the Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act-the SPY ACT.  The bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives with bipartisan support by a vote of 368 to 48.

 

 

“Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 964, the Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act – the SPY Act.  It is a strong consumer protection bill, of which I am an original cosponsor, that will help us in the fight against identity theft. 

 

With today’s vote, the House will have passed the SPY Act three times.  Let’s hope that the third time’s a charm – and that today’s passage means this bill will finally get signed into law. 

 

The SPY Act is important because it protects consumers from spyware, the unwanted and sneaky software that is so powerful that it can steal information from, monitor and control others’ computers – without the computer’s owner even knowing the software has been installed.  

 

The SPY Act would put the control of computers back in the hands of consumers – where it belongs.   It prohibits indefensible uses of the software, like phishing and logging every keystroke entered, and requires that consumers be notified and opt-in before software is installed on their computers.  Furthermore, the SPY Act gives the Federal Trade Commission the additional power it needs to pursue deceptive uses of the software. 

 

I believe that this bill will go a long way toward protecting consumers from having their valuable and personal information stolen by purveyors of spyware. I am glad that I was part of the bipartisan process that brought this bill to the floor today.  I urge my colleagues to support its passage.  Thank you."

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) delivered the following remarks on the House floor in support of H. Con. Res. 152, which recognizes the 40th Anniversary of the Reunification of the City of Jerusalem.

“Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 152, which recognizes the 40^th anniversary of the reunification of the City of Jerusalem . 

 

 

 

This week is recognizing the 40^th Anniversary of the Six-Day War.  On June 7, 1967, reunified the city of Jerusalem , opening it to worshippers of all nationalities and religions. 

 

 

 

On that day Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan declared: “This morning, the Israel Defense Forces liberated Jerusalem . We have united Jerusalem, the divided capital of . We have returned to the holiest of our holy places, never to part from it again. To our Arab neighbors we extend, also at this hour—and with added emphasis at this hour—our hand in peace. And to our Christian and Muslim fellow citizens, we solemnly promise full religious freedom and rights. We did not come to Jerusalem for the sake of other peoples' holy places, and not to interfere with the adherents of other faiths, but in order to safeguard its entirety, and to live there together with others, in unity.”

 

 

 

Madam Speaker, even 40 years after ’s overwhelming victory in the June 1967 War – a war fought to preserve ’s very existence in the face of enemies determined to destroy it – ’s stability is still threatened.  At this critical time in ’s history we must focus on what is of the utmost importance – furthering the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. 

 

 

 

Congress must fully analyze and consider the Arab League Peace Initiative which offers full normalization of relations with the Arab world and is widely viewed in and around the world as an important opportunity and a real basis for negotiations that could end the Israeli-Arab conflict.  While not perfect, this plan sets the table for fruitful negotiations and a final resolution of the conflict.   

 

We must also consider negotiations with .  If successful, such negotiations could have significant positive impact with respect to limiting ’s sphere of influence, calming the situation in , weakening the support network for Hamas and Hezbollah, and delivering real security to on its northern border.

 

We must call on President Bush to invest in serious, sustained, and effective efforts to improve the security situation on the ground today and re-establish a viable peace process that can deliver peace and security to , and international acceptance of Jerusalem as ’s capital.

 

 

 

Madam Speaker, today I call on all of my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 152, and I pledge to continue to work to maintain Jerusalem as ’s indivisible capitol and to promote the policy of the to support a peaceful, two-state solution to end the conflict between and the Palestinians.  Thank you Madam Speaker.”    

Expressing Support for H. Res. 422 – Calling on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to use its Unique Influence and Economic Leverage to Stop Genocide and Violence in Darfur, Sudan

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 422, which calls on the Government of the People’s Republic of to use its unique influence and economic leverage to stop genocide and violence in Darfur, .  I traveled to Darfur in February 2006.  I will never forget what I saw, nor will I relent in my work to end the ongoing genocide.

China, if it chose to, could play a critical role in ending the genocide in Darfur .  The President’s Special Envoy to , Andrew S. Natsios, has said that “’s substantial economic investment in gives it considerable potential leverage, and we have made clear to Beijing that the international community will expect to be part of the solution.”  has a close relationship with the Government of Sudan, economically and militarily.  It purchases 70 percent of ’s oil.  has agreed to cancel nearly $100 million in ’s debt to the country, and it has invested over $10 million in the Sudanese energy sector over the last two decades.  , already the main supplier of arms to with $83 million exported there in 2005, recently agreed to cooperate more closely militarily “in every sphere.” 

With this resolution we are asking to acknowledge and condemn the violence taking place in Darfur, .  Additionally, we are calling on to cease all military arms and equipments sales to .  Finally, we are strongly encouraging to suspend economic ties to until the Government of Sudan stops attacking civilians, complies with UN Security Council resolutions, and enters into peace negotiations with rebel groups.  has the ability to end the genocide and horror.  I hope it chooses to act immediately.

Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this important resolution.  Thank you Madam Speaker.

WASHINGTON, D.C.--U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Vice-Chair of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, delivered the following remarks during a hearing on four bills to protect children from dangerous products. "Thank you, Chairman Rush, for holding today’s hearing on four important bills that would protect children from needless harm and every day dangers.  I am especially grateful that you included my bill, H.R. 1699, the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act – or Danny’s Act.  As we heard at last month’s hearing on children’s products, because of lax laws and inadequate protections, dangerous and in fact, deadly products are being made and sold for use by children.  It is past due that we give parents the security they deserve and children the safety they need. The importance of enacting stronger protections cannot be overstated.  Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death among children, and for every such injury that is fatal, approximately 18 children are hospitalized and 1,250 are treated by emergency departments. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who is with us here today, an average of 61 children under the age of 5 die each year in incidents associated with nursery products.  Of 318 consumer products recalled by the CPSC in 2006, 111, or 35%, were items intended for use by or care of children. My bill, Danny’s Act, would help us prevent those needless and preventable injuries and deaths by making the recall of children’s products more effective.  H.R. 1699 would require that each durable infant and toddler product – high chairs, cribs, and strollers – come with a postage-paid recall registration card.  This will allow the manufacturers to directly contact each parent who bought their product should any problem arise that could put their children at risk.  Although there is a shocking number of recalled products, our current recall system is failing.  Actual notice of a recall is dependent on news outlets picking up the story and spreading the word.  Notification targeted to owners of the products is rare, and many parents remain unaware of dangers even when products are recalled.  In fact, many families still have the dangerous products listed in this report in their homes because they have not happened to turn on the television at the right time or read the right newspaper.  My colleague, Rep. Fred Upton, and I named our bill that would help solve this problem the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act because his story is a tragic example of the inadequacy of our current recall practices.  Danny Keysar, the precious 17-month old son of Linda Ginzel and her husband, Boaz Keysar, died when the Playskool Travel-Lite portable crib he had been napping in at his babysitter’s home collapsed. The rails of the crib folded into a “V”-shaped wedge when he stood up, trapping his neck.  He was strangled to death.  It was May 12, 1998, five years after the CPSC had ordered it off the shelves because it was so dangerous.  Word of its hazard had not reached Danny’s parents, the caregiver with whom he was staying, or a state safety inspector who visited the home just eight days before Danny’s death.  Had Danny’s Act been in effect, there would have been a much greater chance of saving Danny’s life – and the six children who have since died from the Travel-Lite.  We know that while not the “one and only answer,” recall registration cards are a cheap and effective way of getting the word out.  My bill is modeled after the National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration’s recall system for car seats.  Since NHTSA started requiring car seats to have registration cards in 1993, the number of families registering increased by at least tenfold.  Recall repair rates have gone up by 56% – all for a mere 43-cents per item.  This bill will give families a much greater chance to repair, return, or discard any dangerous products that have made it into their children’s nursery. Finally, I would like to also express my support for my colleagues’ bills that are being considered.  Mr. Rush’s bill, H.R. 2474, would raise the cap on civil penalties for knowingly violating CPSC requirements so that getting caught violating safety requirements could not be written off as the cost of doing business.  The Children’s Gasoline Burn Prevention Act, which would extend the requirement of child proof caps to apply to gas cans, could save 1,200 families trips to the emergency room every year.  And, the Pool and Spa Safety Act would set a much needed anti-entrapment standard for pool and spa drains sold in the Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for today’s hearing which helps us change course on children’s product safety.  Thank you."

WASHINGTON, DC -- Today U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) joined colleagues in sending a letter to Speaker Hastert, asking him to seek an apology for statements made my Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki.  Below is the full statement of U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky:

“Thank you for coming today.

“Tomorrow, the United States Congress is scheduled to give Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki the rare and high honor of addressing a joint session of Congress.

“Unfortunately, it has become clear that the new government in Iraq, which came to power with the blessing of the Bush Administration, does not share the same foreign policy goals of the United States when it comes to the Middle East.

“At a time when all of us are particularly concerned about the well being of our staunch ally Israel, we feel strongly that Speaker Hastert should be working to secure an apology or clarification from Prime Minister Maliki for his recent remarks about Israel and for the vicious anti-Semitic rhetoric of the Speaker of Iraq’s Parliament.

“We are sending a letter to Speaker Hastert and we hope he will successfully convince Mr. Maliki to clarify his remarks in acceptable way. If Prime Minister Maliki is not willing to apologize for his remarks or to clarify them, we do not believe the Congress should be offering him the privileged opportunity to address a joint session. Speaker Hastert should reconsider the invitation is he is not successful.

“The Bush Administration, who conceived this tragic war, believed that regime change in Iraq would result in a number of “benefits” for the region. 

“In fact, in August of 2002, Vice President Cheney said, “Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits for the region. ...Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad.  Moderates throughout the region would take heart, and our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced.”

The Bush Administration was flat wrong.

“Extremists throughout the Middle East, including Hezbollah and Hamas have been empowered.  Moderate voices in the region are not being heard.  And the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is under attack.

“The Speaker’s podium in the United States Congress reflects our nation’s values.  Unfortunately, the current Iraqi leadership does not.

“On July 13th, the Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament claimed that there was a Jewish conspiracy which was responsible for the insurgency in Iraq.  He was quoted as saying: “Some people say 'we saw you beheading, kidnapping and killing…These acts are not the work of Iraqis.  I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew.  I can tell you about these Jewish, Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq.”

“And on July 19th, in reference to the conflict in Lebanon which was instigated by an Iran-funded and backed Hezbollah, the Iraqi Prime Minister condemned Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism, calling Israel’s actions “criminal aggressions”.  Additionally, the Iraqi Parliament voted unanimously to condemn Israel.
 
“The comments made by Mr. Maliki were in stark contrast to other American allies in the region, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, who have strongly condemned the indiscriminate and destabilizing violence brought on by Hezbollah.

“As members of Congress, our concerns go well beyond the statements of the Iraqi Speaker and Prime Minister.  In Iraq, we are seeing the emergence of an Iraqi government who supports the ideals of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.  The United States House of Representatives should not allow an address from any world leader who takes these types of positions.

“For that reason we have asked Speaker Hastert to cancel the Iraqi Prime Minister’s invitation to address a joint session of Congress if he does not secure an apology or satisfactory clarification.  In addition, 50 members of Congress have signed a letter to President Bush, asking that he denounce the hate-filled comments of the Iraqi Speaker.

“The challenges that we face in Iraq are great, and as Members of Congress we are committed to helping rebuild Iraqi society.  However, if we are going to commit the human and financial resources of the United States towards the rebuilding effort, we must know that these resources are not being used to promote hate and anti-Semitism.   And they must not empower those who undermine our interests or our allies in an important region."

► Click here to view the letter sent to Speaker Hastert

► Click here to view the joint press release

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky today released the following statement following the passage of H.Res. 921, a resolution condemning the recent attacks against Israel, supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, and holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for their actions:

As a Jew, as someone who loves Israel, and as a member of Congress, I stand in solidarity with the people of Israel.

I remain committed to a peace process for Israel’s security and for the future of the Middle East. Unfortunately, that peace process and the relative calm that has been the reality in the region in recent months were violently attacked at dawn on June 25th when a Hamas terror cell infiltrated Israel through a tunnel, murdered two Israeli soldiers, and kidnapped 19 year old Corporal Gilad Shalit. The operation was praised by the Hamas government. This came after Israel had fully withdrawn from Gaza in September 2005, a move that offered the Palestinian people the opportunity to begin the development of their future independent state.

Then on July 12th, the Iran and Syria-supported Hezbollah terrorist organization crossed the internationally recognized border between Lebanon and Israel under a barrage of rocket and missile salvos, initially killing two Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two more. From positions in Lebanon, Hezbollah launched dozens of rockets laden with ball bearings indiscriminately at civilian communities in Israel. Israel fully withdrew from Lebanon in May of the year 2000. Last week’s attack was so egregious that it prompted the leaders of Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan to condemn Hezbollah’s act of vicious terrorism.

The premeditated, coordinated, and unprovoked terrorist attacks on Israel, from territory that Israel voluntarily conceded in an effort to promote peace and regional security, are absolutely indefensible. Hamas and Hezbollah bear direct responsibility for this current conflict.

Hezbollah receives military, financial and political support from Iran and Syria, with Tehran providing the terrorist group with an estimated $100 million annually. Regular weapons shipments including Katyusha rockets, new long-range ballistic missiles, Chinese-made anti-ship missiles, mortars, anti-tank missiles, mines, explosives and small arms are sent to Hezbollah from Tehran through Damascus.

Iran and Syria have provided Hezbollah with more than 10,000 rockets, including shorter-range Katyushas and more sophisticated longer-range weapons, which the terrorist group is now firing at major Israeli population centers across northern Israel and beyond. In fact, on July 14th, Hezbollah used a Silkworm cruise missile to attack an Israeli ship, killing four sailors and yesterday, rockets slammed into a Christian-Arab neighborhood of Nazareth, a city respected by people of all faiths around the world.

Both Syrian President Bashar Assad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have met with Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah in the past year to reaffirm their ties to the terrorist group. Ahmadinejad promised to continue to support Hezbollah’s struggle against the "enemies of Islam."

Israeli and American officials believe Hezbollah would not have attacked Israel without a green light from its patrons in Damascus and Tehran, and the leaders of both countries have subsequently expressed strong support for the attacks on Israel.

The United States Congress has already enacted several laws, including the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, and the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, all of which call for the imposition of sanctions on Syria and Iran for, among other things, their support for terrorism and terrorist organizations. We must insist that President Bush bring the full force of political, diplomatic, and economic sanctions available to the Government of the United States against the Governments of Syria and Iran.

Sadly and frighteningly, Hezbollah remains off the European Union’s (EU) terrorist list. This means that European nationals continue to provide Hezbollah with material support to this day. President Bush and Secretary of State Rice must make an immediate push with our European allies to have Hezbollah added to the EU terrorist list.

Israel has the responsibility to defend its citizens and cannot be expected to tolerate the violent provocations Hamas and Hezbollah committed this month. And while I am convinced that Israel is using every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties, it has become clear that the terrorists in Hamas and Hezbollah stage their actions from within civilian communities, thereby intentionally putting civilians at risk. Israel must do what is necessary to defend itself while continuing to make every effort to avoid civilian casualties.

As the New York Times stated: “Kidnapping Israeli soldiers to use as bargaining chips for the release of Arab prisoners is horrible behavior for groups that claim international recognition and political legitimacy, as Hamas and Hezbollah do. The same applies to lobbing rockets over Israel’s borders in the hope that they might kill unsuspecting civilians.”

It is long past due for the international community to implement fully UN Security Council Resolution 1559, adopted in September 2004, which calls for the Lebanese army to secure southern Lebanon's border and for Hezbollah to be disarmed and disbanded. Lebanon cannot be free and democratic so long as Hezbollah continues to operate as a state within a state, complete with its own army.

Regarding the Palestinians, the peace process will continue to be under attack until Hamas denounces its violent charter, rejects terrorism, and recognizes Israel’s right to exist and decides it is more important to build a Palestinian state than destroy the Jewish State. I encourage Israeli leaders to maintain a dialogue with moderates within the Palestinian Authority in order to keep hope of a two state solution in the near future alive.

But in the meantime, the United States must stand by its friend and ally Israel, and the Bush Administration must actively engage itself in seeking a resolution to this situation. As a first step to restoring calm, the kidnapped Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon must be returned unconditionally and unharmed, and the indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas and Hezbollah must end immediately.

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky today issued the following statement on the House vote and President Bush’s veto to cut off stem cell research that could provide life-changing medical breakthroughs for millions of Americans:

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in strong support of a veto override for H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. It is clear that a majority of Americans and a bi-partisan majority in Congress strongly support embryonic stem cell research because it could prove to be critical for some 128 million Americans who suffer from juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy, and other diseases.

Stem cell research is essential for the future of medicine in America; one that should be allowed to transcend political lines so that critical gains can be made to save millions of human lives. One such life is that of my constituent, twenty-four year old Bishoy Abo-Saif. In his letter to me, Bishoy described his daily struggle with cerebral palsy. He has been to Canada, the United Kingdom, Hungary, Poland and the Ukraine looking for alternative therapies for his disease. Nothing has worked. Even though he has accomplished academic goals, he still feels he is on the sidelines. As he stated to me, “the wheelchair is always in the way.” However, he said that, “stem cell treatment is the only hope to overcome his condition.”

Most scientists agree that embryonic stem cell research offers the greatest hope to people like Bishoy. America has always been on the cutting edge of new innovation and now we stand on the brink of groundbreaking medical advancements that would dramatically alter the lives of people such as Bishoy. We must not prohibit this promising research.

But the opponents of this measure have put forward disingenuous arguments that fly in the face of widely accepted scientific research and proven potential. They wrongly portray the decision on funding for additional stem cell research as a choice between one life or another. In fact, we are choosing between disposing of embryonic stem cells or using those cells to save countless lives and advance life-saving science in previously unrealized ways. It is incomprehensible that anyone would allow politics and personal preference to trump hard facts and science. And, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, I am deeply disappointed and dismayed over President Bush's decision to issue his first veto on this bill, dashing the hopes so many families who are battling critical illnesses have pinned on the promising potential of stem cell research.

President Bush acted to snuff out the hopes of millions of Americans only to please a small right-wing constituency which has politicized this medical issue. Once again, the Bush Administration has put politics before science sadly taking hope and health away from countless families. We should not delay or deny the potentially lifesaving research offered by stem cell technology. Bishoy and millions of other Americans are counting on us. As Bishoy stated in his letter, “our hopes and dreams are in your hands, please do not shatter them. Allow me and others to regain what we have lost.”

I urge my colleagues to vote “yes” on the veto override to H.R. 810.

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky today delivered the following statement on the floor of the House of Representatives in opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment:

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.J.Res 88, the Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit Same Sex Marriage. If this amendment were to pass, it would mark the first time in history that the Constitution has been amended to include discrimination.

I believe in marriage, as a stabilizing force in our society, as a nurturing environment for children, as a public expression of the most profound love and devotion, of a commitment between two people to take responsibility for one another in a legal and personal sense in sickness and in health. The vast majority of couples are, of course, one man and one woman.

But the same virtues of couplehood apply to any loving adults. Surely the 27 year relationship of my dear friends Michael and Roger do not threaten my marriage in any way. The loving family that Ann and Jackie expanded when they adopted David, giving him two adoring parents, is a good thing, regardless of what anyone may say to the contrary—and nothing in the Constitution should be established to discourage it.

There are so many pressing issues working to undermine families. Same sex couples embrace the positive value of families. Let’s spend our limited time here as law makers helping all families—and not discriminating against them.

WASHINGTON, DC -- Representative Jan Schakowsky, ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, in a mark-up before the Energy and Commerce Committee today introduced two amendments that would ensure that foreign investments in the U.S. do not threaten homeland security, and would protect the environment against a hazardous substance.

Schakowsky’s committee statement is below:

Thank you, Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell for holding today’s markup on three bills that could have serious implications for the safety of our environment and the safety of our country. I would like to say a few short words on all three.

I am concerned that H.R. 4591 would make it difficult, if not impossible, to properly regulate Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in the United States because it seems to have been designed to preempt states’ authority to regulate substances that are subject to the Stockholm treaty. The bill also establishes a new cost-benefit standard that must be met before the U.S. can regulate a newly-listed POP and lacks strong enough language to force a timely implementation of a POPs Convention decision. I urge the committee to accept the Solis substitute which implements the Stockholm Convention’s treaty and its science- based process in an effective, efficient way. The Solis substitute would protect the public health from the effects of the world's most toxic pollutants.

I am also concerned about the antifreeze bill before this Committee today. I am disappointed that the Chairman has bi-passed the Subcommittee markup process to bring forward a controversial bill that would shield the chemical industry from willful misconduct and pre-empt strong state laws. I have been a strong supporter of antifreeze bittering legislation in the past, but the changes in this year’s legislation put corporate interests before consumer safety.

I plan to introduce an amendment to H.R. 2567 today that would eliminate the environmental liability waiver. We do not have the science to conclusively prove that Denatonium Benzoate (DB) is safe, and Americans who live near chemical plants around the country should not be used as guinea pigs. Congress should not strip the civil justice system of its ability to decide whether corporations should be held liable for environmental damage.

Finally, the recent attempt by Dubai Ports World to purchase the operations of six major U.S. ports made it quite clear that it is time to reform the Exon-Florio process of CFIUS, which determines what can be bought in the U.S. by foreign entities. 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. I look forward to supporting the Barton-Dingell-Stearns-Schakowsky manager’s amendment which would hold CFIUS more accountable for its decision by adding reporting requirements to Congress. Thank you.

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.

CHICAGO, IL -- U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky released the following statement today in anticipation of Vice President Cheney’s speech on the economy Friday before the Chicago Mercantile Exchange:

“Today, Vice President Cheney will try to convince Chicagoans that the economy is on the right track. But, like most Americans who have seen their wages remain stagnant, Chicagoans know better. They know that the only beneficiaries of the Bush-Cheney economy are the wealthiest buddies and corporate cronies of the Administration who have seen their incomes soar while being lavished with one tax cut after another.”

“Most Americans are struggling to pay the rising cost of health care, college tuition, heating costs, and gas prices while their wages fail to keep up. Instead of voting to raise the minimum wage this week, Republicans voted in favor of nearly eliminating the estate tax for a very few super-rich Americans like Paris Hilton. If the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation, it would now be $25.00 rather than a pitiful $5.15 an hour -- far from livable.”

“It is remarkable to me that this Administration would dare to even try to wear the jacket of fiscal responsibility while accumulating a debt of nearly $9 trillion, $30,000 per man, woman and child in our country, spending over $11 million every hour in Iraq, and continuing to give oil companies and billionaires huge tax breaks. The Vice President can try to talk up the economy, but no-nonsense Chicagoans know the Emperor has no clothes.”

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, at a hearing before the Subcommittee today called for broad privacy legislation to protect the electronic records of consumers. Schakowsky said consumers’ financial, commercial, and government records should be protected.

Schakowsky’s opening statement is below:

As our committee knows all too well, the transition from shopping on Main Street to “e-commerce” has created new and unique challenges that make current laws inadequate to protect consumers’ right to privacy.  I am glad that we are exploring ways to close the gaps in the law that put consumers’ sensitive information at greater risk.

Although most industrialized nations have comprehensive privacy protection laws, the United States has had a piecemeal approach, regulating by industry and products.  Our Committee is guilty of perpetuating this haphazard approach.  We regulate by headline, or problem of the day, be it spam, spyware, pretexting for phone records, or information brokers.  To our credit, we have been trying to close loopholes, but, at the same time, we have pushed off the big question of establishing broad privacy principles for another day.  I am glad that we are now moving forward to address this important issue. 

The piecemeal approach is also perpetuated by financial, commercial, and other industries that have labeled even the minimal privacy protections we put forth as “too burdensome.”   However, I am sure you all know the old adage that with great power comes great responsibility.  The Internet and the advances in technology have given the industry great power to reach consumers, sell their wares, and compile large databases of information.  The expansion of their reach also means that industry also has a greater responsibility to protect consumers and their private personal information. 

I am pleased to hear that a number of industry leaders have come together, along with Professor Peter Swire who has a long history of promoting consumer privacy, to start exploring broad legislation that would close the gaps in the law and set privacy principles that all industries should follow – both on- and off-line.  Since we are just beginning these discussions, it is unclear whether we will be able to agree on a common product.  Nonetheless, I am glad that some in industry are beginning to shift their thinking about personal consumer information and privacy.

However, we should not limit our scope to commercial practices.  We should thoroughly examine government practices as well.  Although we have one of the most secretive Administrations in our country’s history, it simultaneously has been the most invasive into the public’s privacy.

As I mentioned before, our committee unanimously passed legislation, the Prevention of Fraudulent Access to Phone Records Act, in order to better secure private phone records and put the control of personal calls back in consumers’ hands.  However, that bill appears to be the victim of extra-territorial rendition.  Eight days after it was pulled from the floor schedule, USA Today broke the story that the National Security Administration was acquiring the public’s phone records from three of the major carriers without subpoenas, warrants, or any approval from the courts.  If true, it has occurred without consumers’ knowledge or consent and with total disregard to the Privacy Act and other laws, like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), that govern how our intelligence agencies operate. 

Chairman Stearns, as you may recall, I, along with every Democrat on our Committee sent a letter to Chairman Barton calling for a hearing on the allegations concerning the phone companies and the NSA.  That letter was sent on May 11th, and we still have not received a response.  If we are serious about privacy, about closing the loopholes, getting beyond patchwork legislation, then we can not turn a blind eye to what is happening in our own backyard and the total disregard for privacy laws on the books by the Administration. 

Additionally, I think we need to look into the strong-arm tactics the Administration is employing to stop investigations into its anti-privacy practices.  New Jersey and other states have been exploring whether the phone companies’ sharing of records is in violation of their privacy laws.  In retaliation, on June 15th, the Justice Department brought a suit against the New Jersey Attorney General, Zulima Farber, to stop him from seeking information about telephone companies’ cooperation with the NSA.  Throwing out the disclaimer that it is in the “interest of national security” does not give the Administration a free pass to trample on Civil Liberties and states’ rights– and sue those who are trying to protect the American public from privacy invasions.

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, a member of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, today delivered the following statement at a hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Reactor Oversight Process. Since the Reactor Oversight Process was implemented in 2000, the nuclear industry has been cited over 4,000 times for safety violations, and Illinois has been subject to several leaks of radioactive tritium and the nation’s first on site-nuclear emergency in a decade at the LaSalle facility.

Rep. Schakowsky’s statement is below:

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Reactor Oversight Process. A number of recent incidents at nuclear plants in Illinois and throughout the nation have put in doubt whether the NRC’s safety standards and inspection processes are adequate. I look forward to discussing whether the NRC has learned from incidents like Davis-Besse and restructured its oversight process sufficiently to prevent their recurrence.

Since President Bush has proposed new nuclear development as a signature part of his energy policy, we must ensure that the NRC’s safety procedures are foolproof and that they deter future incidents. Since the Reactor Oversight Process was implemented in 2000, safety inspections found that plants or employees had failed to comply with safe operating procedures in over 4,000 instances. And while many of those incidents were classified as “green,” under this system, green doesn’t mean all clear – it means that a plant or an employee failed to meet the NRC’s safety standards. I look forward to discussing whether that number is an improvement over the number of incidents that occurred before the ROP was in place, and whether the ROP has promoted a culture of safety and accountability at our nation’s nuclear plants.

In Illinois, which has 11 nuclear reactors, several incidents at Exelon plants have demonstrated that even after the implementation of the ROP, there have been a number of safety hazards and radioactive leaks that have threatened public health. This February, Exelon disclosed to the public that between 1996 – 2003, two Illinois plants spilled radioactive, cancer causing tritium on four occasions. Not only did this expose holes in oversight, it also highlighted the nuclear industry’s failure to disclose threats to the public health. One of the most immediate ways the Energy and Commerce Committee could promote nuclear safety would be to consider the Nuclear Release Notice Act, sponsored by Senator Obama and Congressman Weller, which would force the nuclear industry to notify the state, county, and public whenever there is an unplanned release of radioactive material in excess of legal limits. Illinois enacted legislation this year which requires nuclear plants to report leaks of radioactive material that contaminate groundwater, surface water, and the soil to state regulators within 24 hours.

In addition to these unannounced radioactive leaks, on February 20, there was a rare on-site emergency at Exelon’s LaSalle facility involving control rods that are used to shut reactors down. The NRC has subsequently released a report that states that the site area emergency declared at LaSalle overstated the problem, but the incident raised several questions. First, shouldn’t there be federal standards, regulated by the NRC, which outline what constitutes a nuclear emergency and mandates a particular federal response? In addition, under the ROP, individual plants are inspected more or less regularly based on their individual histories. The incidents at Davis-Besse and LaSalle beg the question why aren’t all of the nation’s 103 nuclear plants inspected and regulated with the highest possible frequency and standards?

Mr. Chairman, the residents of towns like Seabrook, New Hampshire, Salem, New Jersey and Braidwood, Illinois want to know definitively that things have changed since Three Mile Island. They and their families want to believe that they have nothing to fear from the nuclear plants in their towns and from the water supplies which feed the plants. Over the past several years, there have been over 4,000 unsafe incidents at the nation’s 103 nuclear plants. I ask our witnesses – is the ROP the best and safest reactor oversight system we could possibly have? Knowing that so many plants have failed to meet the NRC’s current safety standards – do we have the capacity and the oversight system to safely expand the number of reactors in this country? Today we should not only judge whether the ROP has been effective, we should also take a broader look to determine whether the President’s plan to expand nuclear development in this country is safe and warranted.

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, today delivered the following statement of the floor of the House during debate on the H.Res. 861, the House Republicans' partisan resolution which would encourage the U.S. to stick to its failed strategy of staying the course in Iraq. Schakowsky highlighted Republican mistakes that misled the American public into war and the lack of accountability since the war has begun. She called on Congress to pass the Murtha resolution and to deploy American troops from Iraq.

Schakowsky's statement is below:

Mr. Speaker, as a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I rise in strong support of our brave troops, and in strong support of Congressman Murtha's plan for a responsible redeployment from Iraq.

Americans want the truth about the Iraq war. Americans deserve the truth, and despite all the talk from those who declared this war, so ineptly pursued this, and still today justify this war, the American people, in overwhelming numbers have determined for themselves the truth about this war. Reputable polls taken after the killing of Al-Zarqawi show that only 33 percent of American adults think that the result of the war was worth the loss of American life and other costs, only 33 percent approve of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq and only 26 percent of Americans feel that the United States is better off because of the war.

The American people, in their wisdom, have been able to distinguish reality from rhetoric. The truth has been a major casualty of the war in Iraq. It is worth reviewing just a few of the statements presented as truth that were told over the last 4 years, some remarkably being said again today, that have been proven not be NOT TRUE, never true, and still not true.

Dick Cheney said in August 2002: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Secretary Rumsfeld said in March 2003: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Then the President said in May 2003: “We found the weapons of mass destruction….[F]or those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.”

Then, Secretary Rumsfled said: “Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.”

And then, Dick Cheney said on May 30, 2005: “I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”

And what happens to those experts who tell the truth? Are they heeded and embraced by the Bush Administration? Hardly!

Though it is now universally agreed that we didn't have enough troops to avoid the chaos and violence after the initial invasion, when the Army's top general, Eric Shinseki, testified in February 2003 that “something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would be necessary to achieve victory in Iraq, he was immediately and publicly repudiated by Secretary Rumsfeld who said that "the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark." Shinseki was quietly ushered into retirement, and Secretary Rumsfeld remains in place leading the failed Bush Administration policy in Iraq.

When Dr. Lawrence Lindsey, former assistant for economic policy to President Bush, told the Wall Street Journal in September 2002 that the war's cost could reach $200 billion dollars, he was fired by the President. By everyone's estimation, we have spent well in excess $450 billion in Iraq. Some say, considering all the costs including caring for the severely wounded, the war will cost $1 trillion taxpayers dollars.

Since the time the President announced on May 1st, 2003, that “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” more than 2,350 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives, and the President has not attended a single one of their funerals. And the United States is spending in excess of $8 billion dollars a month to wage the war in Iraq. That means we are spending approximately $266 million a day, $11 million an hour, $185,000 a minute, and $3,100 a second for this war.

Certainly we could have afforded body armor and proper Humvees for our soldiers, we could have insured 165 million children for one year, provided more than 13 million American students with 4-year scholarships at public universities, fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 11 years, to give basic immunization to every child in the world 92 years. I believe that would have given us more security than the war in Iraq has done.

Our military men and women have done a magnificent job in the Iraq theater, and deserve better. The civilian leadership in the White House and the civilian leadership at the Pentagon have failed. They projected the cost of the war - wrong. They predicted the length of the war - wrong. They predicted the existence of weapons of mass destruction - wrong. They predicted the Iraqi reaction to our occupation - wrong. They got the reconstruction of Iraq - wrong. They performed their oversight responsibilities - wrong. They understood the need to provide properly up-armored Humvees and the need to provide appropriate body armor - wrong. Who will pay the price for their mistakes? None of the architects of this war. No one of them has been held accountable. The only ones paying the price are dead and wounded soldiers, our men and women in uniform.

We need a new direction in Iraq. The majority has nothing to offer in terms of a plan. Just more political ploys, more talk, more mistakes, like today's debate.

It is time to redeploy our troops from Iraq. There is a plan. The Murtha plan. We should ensure we are not establishing a permanent military presence in Iraq.

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, today in a mark-up before the Committee voted in support of measures that would promote the use of information technology in health care and several amendments that would protect the privacy of patients as medical technology is updated.

Schakowsky’s opening statement is below:

First, I want to express my support for the outstanding work that community health centers are performing in my district and around the country. The Health Centers Renewal Act is important both in recognizing the successes of health centers and showing our support for their continued work. As the number of uninsured and underinsured Americans continues to grow every year, community health centers are more important than ever. Not only do health centers serve a desperate need, they do so in a manner that reflects the characteristics of their communities and incorporates patient participation in their governance.

Second, I want to address H.R. 4157, the Health Information Technology Promotion Act. We are all aware of the enormous promise that Health IT holds in improving patient outcomes and reducing medical errors. Although many questions remain to be resolved, there is no question that Health IT will be the face of medicine in the 21st Century. In order to ensure that its benefits are widely realized, we need to provide the medical community - particularly safety net providers and providers serving medically-underserved populations - with the resources they need to join the move to Health IT. I will be supporting amendments to provide the grants, loans and technical assistance needed to accomplish that goal.

In order to maximize Health IT's benefits and minimize its dangers, I will also be supporting amendments to protect patients' privacy. Patients share the most sensitive of personal information with their health care providers. The loss of that information could be devastating and could lead to serious harm, including financial and emotional harm. Unfortunately, there are actors in the health market place with no regard for the sanctity of personal health information who may misuse or abuse it for profit or worse. Without adequate privacy protections, we also could see patients taking the risky steps of trying to protect themselves by concealing health problems in one way or another, bouncing from doctor to doctor to avoid compiling a comprehensive health record, and avoiding medical tests. In order to ensure we are doing what we should to keep patients’ health information safe, we must set minimum standards of data security and establish a notification system should it falter. Thank you.

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Representatives Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rảul Grỉjalva (D-AZ), James P. McGovern (D-MA), Sam Farr (D-CA) and Barbara Lee (D-CA) today issued the following statement in anticipation of President Uribe’s planned meeting with President Bush on Wednesday, June 14, 2006.

“We join in welcoming Colombian President Ảlvaro Uribe on his visit to Washington and congratulate him upon his reelection. At this moment, we would like to pose two questions to President Uribe and one to President Bush.

“To President Uribe:

“1. In your second term, Mr. President, do you plan to invest more resources in bringing basic services --roads, water, electricity, alternative development, farm credit and extension services, schools, courts, health clinics -- to the parts of the countryside torn by conflict? Investment in neglected areas of the country is as vital as security in establishing a peaceful and prosperous nation. What are your plans to return land to many of Colombia's some 3 million people displaced by violence and to provide the tools to rebuild their lives?

“2. What are your plans to strengthen the rule of law in Colombia, to fully dismantle paramilitary networks now that many have demobilized, to ensure that your armed forces respect human rights, and to investigate and prosecute those who stray from these guidelines? What steps will you take to protect the rights of human rights defenders, union leaders, community activists, journalists, students and opposition politicians who face threats and attacks, and yet whose work is vital for a flourishing democratic society?

“To President Bush:

“3. Is it not time for us to invest more, and more effectively, in drug treatment and prevention programs here at home? We have spent $4.7 billion in Colombia, much of it on an expensive aerial spraying program that has failed to reduce by one acre the quantity of drugs produced in Colombia. Would it not be more helpful to our own country and to drug-producing nations to invest more resources in reducing the demand for illegal drugs?”

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, a former member of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, returned to the Subcommittee today to participate in a hearing on private military contractors. Schakowsky called on the Subcommittee to provide more oversight for private contractors, which the U.S. government has increasingly relied on for use in military operations. Schakowsky sponsored an amendment that was attached to the FY07 Defense Authorization bill, which would require an Inspector General report on contractor overcharges, establish a background check system for foreign nationals hired for work on US contracts, prevent contractors from hiring felons and human rights abusers, make retroactive 2005 contractor rules so that they cover all active contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and require sufficient contractor oversight officers to review contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Schakowsky’s statement in today’s Subcommittee hearing is below:

Over the past decade, private military contractors, or PMCs, have become a key factor in U.S. military operations.  U.S. military logistics, combat assistance, and security services are increasingly outsourced to private entities.  Civilians have taken on many of the responsibilities and duties once performed exclusively by uniformed personnel.  As a result, today advancement of key U.S. foreign policy goals relies far more on private, non-state actors than at any time in American history.

Regulating the responsibilities and accountability of private actors on the international stage is one of the most important policy challenges that the Congress needs to address in regards to our foreign policy.  Yet, while the PMC trend is having a profound impact on the planning and conduct of modern warfare, there has been almost no scrutiny and even less oversight in regulating the U.S. – PMC relationship.

In fact, when I offered an amendment to the FY07 Defense Authorization bill that would help provide better Congressional oversight on military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan the Republican majority refused to allow me to include language asking for the number of contracts in existence, the total cost of these contracts, the total number of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number of dead and wounded contractors, a report on the laws that had been broken by contractors, a list of disciplinary actions taken against contactors, and they would not allow Congress to receive copies of contracts issued in excess of $100 million dollars.

The Bush Administration’s support for the privatization of government functions, coupled with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, has accelerated the demands for private security services.  Contractors compose the second largest force in Iraq after the U.S. military.  And to date, more military contractors have been killed in Iraq than non-US “coalition” soldiers.  We can all acknowledge that military contractors require the same stringent accountability and oversight standards as the U.S. military.  After all, private contractors often serve side by side with our brave troops, and these same United States troops are often tasked to protect our contractors, who are paid with billions of US taxpayer dollars.
 
Several high profile scandals have exposed the challenges we face with PMCs.  Contractors have been implicated in financial, legal, and human rights abuses, including illicit trade, drugs, prostitution rings, allegations of fraud, human rights abuses and worst of all, unprovoked civilian deaths.  These events have highlighted the challenges that arise when non-state actors are employed in active war zones and are not sufficiently regulated or when enforcement of existing laws remains weak. 

The private military contractor business is the war business, and for-profit companies do not share the same mission-based goals as the US military.  They are in business for profit.   As the Iraq experience makes clear, a more transparent framework for monitoring and regulation of contractors is urgently needed. 

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, a founding member of the Out-of-Iraq Caucus, today released the following statement on the Republican leadership’s decision to strip the Lee-Schakowsky-Allen-Hinchey amendment that would have prevented the U.S. from establishing permanent bases in Iraq from H.R. 4939, the war supplemental appropriations bill:

“During the debate on this bill, both Democrats and Republicans, the House and the Senate, went on record against establishing permanent bases in Iraq.  Behind the closed doors of the Conference Committee, this widely supported provision was removed without explanation.”

“Because the Bush Administration will set no timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, both chambers of Congress acted to make sure our troops will not be left in Iraq indefinitely,” said Schakowsky.  “Unfortunately, the Republican-dominated Conference Committee continued to rubber stamp the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy.” 

“Three years into the war, tens of thousands of American troops remain targets of a growing Iraqi insurgency. With no plan to win the peace and to secure Iraq, President Bush has left us with no good options. It is time to strategically redeploy our troops from Iraq and to let the Iraqis secure and govern their nation.”

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Representatives and Chicago delegation members Jan Schakowsky and Bobby L. Rush joined with fellow House Energy and Commerce Committee members John Dingell (D-MI), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Bart Stupak (D-MI) in sending a letter to the Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health asking that he prohibit the sale of meat and fish products treated with carbon monoxide. Schakowsky is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. Rush, a senior member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, also serves on the Subcommittee on Health.

First broken by WMAQ in Chicago, the meat and fish industries have recently begun using carbon monoxide in their packaging to preserve the coloration of meat and fish long after the products have expired. This practice could easily deceive consumers. In a March 6 editorial, the Tribune noted that “appearance – especially color – is the number one factor in selecting a package of meat,” and that this practice “smacks of deceptive marketing.” The Chicago City Council is considering a ban on using carbon monoxide in meat packaging.

“The meat and fish industries are using scientific tricks to push spoiled products on consumers. For busy moms and speed shoppers, the color of meat and fish is the first indicator that the product is okay to eat,” said Representative Jan Schakowsky, whose career as a consumer advocate began by winning a fight to require freshness date labeling on food. “Carbon monoxide does nothing to preserve food; instead, it disguises spoiled food to make consumers think it’s fresh. It should be banned from meat and fish packaging.”

“Many of my constituents already disproportionately suffer from the lack of access to fresh produce and meat,” said Rush, “and to knowingly allow the meat and fish industries to treat their products with carbon monoxide as a means to preserve coloring is a deceptive practice that must be ceased immediately. This tactic, along with misleading labeling poses severe health risks and is nothing more than predatory behavior on the people we are charged to protect.”

A full copy of the letter to Eric Whitaker, the Director of the Illinois Department of Health, is below:

Dear Director Whitaker,

We are writing to ask you to use your authority to prevent the sale of meat and fish products treated with carbon monoxide (CO). Alternatively, we ask that you ensure that labeling for such products include a very clear and protective “use or freeze by” date, and that consumers are aware that they cannot rely on product color to determine the safety of meat or fish at retailers that carry such products. We understand that the expiration dates on some of these potentially dangerous products are illegible and the dates themselves may not provide adequate protection against toxins (studies vary widely).

By letters dated February 9, 2006, and March 30, 2006 (attached), we requested that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration remove meat treated with carbon monoxide from the market until industry claims that such products were safe could be assessed through a public notice and comment hearing procedure as required by law. Those letters and their attachments document the risk to Americans from meat and fish treated with carbon monoxide to prevent the deterioration in color that consumers rely upon to determine whether or not such products are wholesome.

We understand that many large grocery stores, as well as many smaller independent stores and butcher shops, refuse to carry such products. But where these products are sold, consumers are at risk and could use your help.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If your have any questions, please contact David Nelson of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Democratic staff at 202-226-3400.


Sincerely,

JAN SCHAKOWSKY

BOBBY L. RUSH

JOHN D. DINGELL

HENRY A. WAXMAN

BART STUPAK

EDWARD J. MARKEY


cc: The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce

The Honorable Ed Whitfield, Chairman
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, today sent a letter to the Director of National Intelligence raising questions about authority he was granted by President Bush that would allow the DNI to exempt corporations from record keeping duties and liability for matters if deemed related to national security. This authority to grant waivers has broad implications for the reported phone record and internet message tracking programs the NSA has engaged in with major telecommunications companies.

Schakowsky is the sponsor of the SAFE CALL Act, which would protect the phone records of consumers, and was joined by all Democratic Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in pressing Chairman Barton to hold hearings to determine what the telecommunications companies have shared with the Administration, and whether those actions were legal.

The letter is below:

June 8, 2006

John D. Negroponte
Director of National Intelligence
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Washington, DC 20511

Dear Director Negroponte:

            It has come to my attention that on May 5, 2006, President Bush issued a memo that gives you as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) broad authority to exempt corporations from record keeping duties and liability for specific actions that may be taken should the DNI declare that such actions are matters of national security (Federal Register: May 12, 2006 [Volume 71, Number 92, Page 27943, Doc 06-4538]).   I am concerned about this new authority because under it, the DNI does not need to seek any permission from the President or Congress to issue such directives and there is minimal oversight once the directive is given.  In fact, it is my understanding that since the DNI is only required to report on directives “active” on the annual October 1st reporting date, the DNI could in fact cover up all directives by having them expire on September 30th of the reporting year.  I believe that such expansive authority coupled with lax oversight could lead to the misuse of the power, the over-issuing of directives, and the hiding of activities that could be unconstitutional and violations of citizens’ civil liberties.   For instance, I believe that such directives could have been issued to the major telecommunications firms concerning the sharing of phone call records with the National Security Agency without citizens’ knowledge or consent.

Because of my concerns, I respectfully request that you provide answers to the below questions to clarify how the DNI has used or will use its new authority.  While I understand that there may be concerns of revealing classified information, I have been careful to word the questions in such a manner as to try not to force the DNI to reveal anything that could truly jeopardize national security. 

Did the DNI request this authority or was it issued because of the initiative of another?  If another, please specify who?

Was there a particular corporate activity that the DNI or another believed warranted such protection from disclosure and liability?

How many directives has your office issued since May 5, 2006?

Have any directives issued been made retroactive to apply to activities that corporations may have been engaged in prior to May 5, 2006?

What other departments or agencies have been consulted in issuing those directives, if any?

How are “matters concerning the national security” determined?  Who contributes to determining something is a matter of national security?

Could directives be issued to telecommunications firms in order to obtain citizens’ phone records without their knowledge or consent?  If so, how would this be considered an issue of national security that should be covered up?

I appreciate your cooperation and would like your response to the above questions by June 22, 2006.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact my office at 202-225-2111.  Thank you.

                                               
                                                            Sincerely,



                                                            Jan Schakowsky
                                                            Member of Congress
 

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, today delivered the following statement on the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act before voting against it in the House of Representatives. Schakowsky voted in favor of the Democratic alternative, which would create a strategic reserve of refined product that the President could tap in the case of a national emergency.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act. This bill would endanger the environment and the health of communities across America in order to provide another giveaway to the oil and gas industry which is reaping record profits.

The oil industry is responsible for limiting refinery capacity. During the 1990s, the American Petroleum Institute encouraged the oil industry to limit refining capacity in order to boost profits. The industry followed instructions, closing 176 refineries since 1980 and failing to fully utilize available capacity. According to the Washington Post, between September 2004 and 2005, refineries marked up their prices 255% while gasoline retailers only marked up their prices by 5 percent. The five largest oil companies, many of which own refineries, reported record profits of $110 billion in 2005. Exxon Mobil reported the largest annual profit of an American company in history.

Environmental regulations are not standing in the way of new refineries being opened. The CEOs of Shell and ConocoPhillips have testified that no federal or state regulations had prevented them from siting new refineries. Only one energy company, Arizona Clean Fuels, has filed a permit to open a new refinery in over twenty years. When Arizona Clean Fuels was granted that permit, the company never actually opened the refinery. Its inability to find investors, not environmental regulations, prevented the company from opening a refinery.

After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, refinery outages caused a supply shock that was in part responsible for a rise in gasoline prices. The Democrats, under the leadership of Representatives Dingell, Stupak and Boucher, proposed the creation of a strategic refinery reserve which would ensure that the U.S. had an adequate supply of refined product in case of national emergency. Republicans have repeatedly rejected Democrats’ efforts to create that reserve, which would put the interests of consumers before the profits of the oil industry. Republicans have also rejected an attempt by ranking member Dingell and Energy and Commerce Democrats to make this legislation bi-partisan.

This bill is another giveaway to the oil and gas industry that could impose refineries on communities throughout the country. It requires President Bush to designate three closed military bases as sites for new refineries, waiving local and state regulations and giving communities little input in the process. It allows Secretary Rumsfeld to sell or transfer the land to an oil company at no cost. Congress should know by now that billions of dollars in giveaways to the oil and gas industry has only led to record profits and record energy prices.

This bill again demonstrates the misplaced priorities of this Republican Congress. While my constituents are paying $2.96 for a gallon of regular gas in Chicago, we are considering legislation that would do nothing to bring down gasoline prices. Nothing in this legislation forces oil companies to utilize all of their available refining capacity, nor does it protect our supply in the case of a national emergency. This bill will lead to higher profits in the boardroom and more pain at the pump.

WASHINGTON, DC  - US Representative Jan Schakowsky released a statement today calling for a renewed commitment to soldiers and veterans as we pause to remember the fallen.

The full text of Representative Schakowsky’s statement is below:

“This Memorial Day, we honor the service of America’s soldiers and veterans. Even as we remember the fallen, we must renew our commitment to support our soldiers and veterans.”

“As we memorialize those who gave their lives for our country, we think of our soldiers risking their lives today in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the situation in Iraq deteriorates, we should honor our soldiers by beginning to withdraw troops as soon as possible.”

“Soldiers, veterans, and their families deserve more than rhetoric on Memorial Day – they deserve results. Just this week, we learned that the Social Security numbers of millions of our veterans were stolen. I have co-sponsored legislation that will allow veterans free access to credit monitoring, so that they will know whether they have been victims of identity theft.”

“The President and his friends in Congress have made empty promises to veterans while slashing VA benefits and increasing health care costs. It’s time to provide our soldiers with a new GI Bill of Rights that will improve health care benefits and services, end the disabled veterans tax and the military families tax, provide support to homeless veterans, and provide bonuses and special pay for the permanently injured.”
“I will continue to fight to provide soldiers, veterans, and their families with the health care and financial support that they deserve for serving our nation.”

Representative Schakowsky is a co-sponsor of the following three bills critical to veterans this year:

►The New GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century:
Representative Schakowsky is an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2131, the New GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century Act, which would provide improved health car, benefits, and services to veterans and active troops.  The GI Bill would curb the costs of health care and improve benefits for veterans, expand health care to members of the National Guard and Reservists, end the military families tax, enhance education and job training programs for veterans, and provide bonuses and special pay for the permanently injured.  Additionally, it would end the disabled veterans tax, which forces veterans to give up a dollar of retirement pay for each dollar they receive in compensation for a service-connected disability, and the military families tax.
 
►The Assured Funding for Veterans’ Health Care Act: 
Representative Schakowsky is an original co-sponsor of H.R. 515, the Assured Funding for Veterans’ Health Care Act, which would make funding for VA health care mandatory, and ensure that the allocated funding is used solely to proved or support health benefits and services. 

►The Veterans’ Identity Protection Act:
Representative Schakowsky is an original co-sponsor of H.R. 5455, which would provide one free year of credit monitoring to veterans affected by the Social Security number theft, and then provide additional free credit reports after the monitoring has ended.

WASHINGTON, DC  - U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert yesterday after the Prime Minister delivered a rousing speech before a joint session of Congress that was interrupted several times by standing ovations.

In the meeting, Prime Minister Olmert expressed his appreciation for the overwhelming bipartisan support he received before both chambers of Congress. He emphasized how much the friendship between the United States and Israel meant to him and the Israelis. The Prime Minister noted that the Israeli people had watched the joint session live on television. He particularly thanked the Jewish members in the delegation for always being there for Israel.

Schakowsky commended the Prime Minister’s strong commitment to working toward a lasting peace in the Middle East, and expressed her ongoing support for Israel’s efforts to finalize a two-state solution.  Schakowsky also praised Prime Minister Olmert for reaching out to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who represents a voice of moderation in the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. 

Representative Schakowsky said she was grateful to the Prime Minister for highlighting a bill she co-sponsored, the United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Act.  “Creating a federal grant program to fund joint ventures between American and Israeli businesses, academic institutions and non-profit agencies that promote the development of clean energy technologies is a win-win for Israel and the United States,” stated Rep. Schakowsky.  “The passage of this bill would bolster the security of both nations by decreasing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.  It would also strengthen the economy of both nations by creating jobs and transforming the energy industry.  This legislation would promote sustainable development and protect the environment, not only in the U.S. and in Israel, but throughout the world.”

Schakowsky committed to promote this bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee, of which she is a member. Along with the rest of the delegation, she pledged to continue to work to strengthen the relationship between the U.S. and Israel.

WASHINGTON, DC  - U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, today offered her continued support for the DATA Act as the strongest way of protecting consumers against attacks on their privacy and personal data. The Energy and Commerce Committee voted to replace an alternative bill, the Financial Data Protection Act, with the language of the DATA Act, which first emerged from the Subcommittee on which Schakowsky serves as ranking member.

Schakowsky’s opening statement from the Committee mark-up is below:

I am going to focus my remarks on H.R. 3997, the Financial Data Protection Act, because it falls within the purview of the Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee of which I am the Ranking Member.  H.R.3997 contends with one of the more troubling revelations of the 109th Congress and one of the biggest issues for consumers today:  the lack of security and regard for consumers’ personal information.  As you know, Chairman Stearns’ and our subcommittee also did a bill, H.R. 4127, the Data Accountability and Trust Act – or the DATA Act – that contends with personal information breaches and passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee with unanimous bipartisan support.

Since February 15, 2005 and the revelation that ChoicePoint had sold personal records to con-artists, 55 million notices have gone out to consumers informing them that their personal information had not been sufficiently protected and had been breached.  This week, 26.5 million more notices will go out because of the mishandling of the personal information of our veterans by the very agency that is charged with looking out for their best interest – the Veterans Administration.  It is time that we set a national standard for protecting our constituents – and our heroes – from being victimized because of inadequate security standards.

H.R. 3997 is the not the answer to the epidemic of data insecurity.  As three of the major consumer groups say, “H.R. 3997 moves us in the exact wrong direction.  It overturns the 17 state security freeze laws… It requires individual notification only after the company decided that consumers are at risk…We call this ‘don’t know, don’t tell…’ (It) preempts a broad array of state laws… protecting the security or confidentiality of consumers…” 

Our bill, H.R. 4127, on the other hand, would require companies to better secure consumers’ personal information and to notify them should their information be breached.  The DATA Act helps close the canyon-sized gaps in the law that put consumers at risk of identity theft, fraud, and other crimes. 

That’s why I am pleased that we will be amending H.R. 3997 and replacing the text of that bill with the text of the DATA Act.   I believe that as the committee that has jurisdiction over protecting consumers, this is the best way to ensure personal information is protected and to let our constituents know when they are not.  I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 3997 as amended. 

But, Mr. Chairman, this Committee needs to do MUCH more to protect the privacy of our constituents.  We need to start with making a promise that we will vigorously review all allegations of another kind of breach: the breach of the public’s trust reportedly carried out by the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping, Internet activity monitoring, and phone logging of millions of law abiding Americans.  This Committee should act swiftly to investigate those allegations and we should come together in a bipartisan way to put a stop to any such abuses of power by any Administration. 

WASHINGTON, DC  - U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, a member of the Subcommittee on the Environment and Hazardous Materials, at a hearing before the Subcommittee today spoke in opposition to a bill which would shield the chemical industry from any liability related to an untested antifreeze additive. Schakowsky called on the Subcommittee to put science ahead of speculation and instead require manufacturers to produce an antifreeze from which children, animals, and the environment would be protected.

Schakowsky’s opening statement is below:

Thank you, Chairman Gillmor, for holding today’s hearing on antifreeze products. I am concerned that what was a bill that would protect both children and pets from consuming deadly antifreeze is now a bill that will shield the chemical industry from willful misconduct and pre-empt strong state laws. I have been a strong supporter of legislation which would put bittering agents in anti-freeze and was a co-sponsor of this legislation last year, but I am concerned about changes that have been made which put corporate interests before consumer safety.

The problem before this Subcommittee is clear: ethylene glycol, on which the antifreeze most commonly used in the U.S. is based, is registered by the EPA as a toxic substance and is ingested by thousands of children and pets each year. The solution, however, is less clear. Ethylene glycol isn’t the only type of antifreeze on the market in the United States. We should consider whether promoting a safer version of antifreeze, based on propylene glycol, is a viable option. While a number of studies indicate that DB has a bittering effect that deters both pets and humans from consuming it, its environmental impact remain unclear. We may discover alternative bittering agents that would both have a taste aversive effect and have no demonstrable impact on the environment.

The legislation before us differs from the Antifreeze Bittering Act which we considered during the last Congress. First, it expands the liability waiver to include environmental damage – even though some research suggests that DB is not biodegradable and could contaminate drinking water. It also eliminates the willful misconduct exception that was included in the previous version of the legislation. It mandates the use of DB as a bittering agent in ethylene glycol-based antifreeze, which would pre-empt the use of safer and better options that could be developed in coming years. It pre-empts stronger state laws like those in California and Oregon which would allow the use of aversive agents other than DB, allowing science, not speculation, to dictate the best option.

The chemical industry has reversed its position on this issue since it was considered in 2004. At that time, the Consumer Specialty Products Association argued that “there is no credible scientific evidence showing that the inclusion of bitterants in [antifreeze] has resulted in a reduction in incidents of accidental poison.” The CSPA submitted a number of studies to the Library of Congress to document the inconclusiveness of that science. Now that the liability waiver has been broadened to include environmental damage and eliminated the exception for willful misconduct, the industry is here today testifying in support of the legislation.

Before passing a bill that wipes out consumer and environmental protections and pre-empts state laws, we must ensure that we are acting based on conclusive science in support of a solution that will protect our children, pets, and the environment.

WASHINGTON, DC  - U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, today wrote a letter to AT&T Chairman and CEO Edward Whitacre to ask that AT&T disclose whether it had shared the phone records and internet messages of American consumers with the National Security Agency. Schakowsky was joined by all Democratic members of the Energy and Commerce Committee last week in asking Chairman Barton to hold hearings on whether the telecomunications companies had shared phone records with the NSA.

In today’s letter, Schakowsky said: “Although it is my understanding that AT&T may have received a directive from the Director of National Intelligence (Federal Register: May 12, 2006 [Volume 71, Number 92, Page 27943, Doc 06-4538]) excusing AT&T from the duty of keeping records and liability for specific actions it may be taking, I would like more information on the Internet and phone records AT&T may have provided to the NSA and the access AT&T has provided the NSA to its telecommunications network, if any.”

Schakowsky is the sponsor of the SAFE CALL Act, which would have prohibited pretexting, or posing as someone else, in order to obtain phone records. This legislation served as the basis for the Prevention of Fradulent Access to Phone Records Act. In the letter to AT&T CEO Whitacre, Schakowsky raised concerns that the company had played a role in removing the bill from the House floor.

”I am also concerned about the role your company may have played in the removal of H.R. 4943, the Prevention of Fraudulent Access to Phone Records Act from consideration on the House floor.  As you know, the Energy and Commerce Committee recently passed unanimously H.R. 4943, the Prevention of Fraudulent Access to Phone Records Act, which would protect consumers from having their phone calls accessed without their permission as is currently happening.  Although it was scheduled for a vote on the House floor on May 2, 2006, it was pulled because of undisclosed concerns raised with House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert and which I am concerned relate to the current questionable activities in which your company may have been involved.  I respectfully request that you provide me with the answers to the following questions.”

The full text of the letter to Whitacre is below:


Mr. Edward E. Whitacre, Jr.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
AT&T
175 East Houston Street
Suite 1300
San Antonio, Texas 78205

Dear Mr. Whitacre:

            According to recent news reports, your company has allowed the National Security Agency (NSA) to install equipment capable of examining "every individual message" on the Internet.  Additionally, it has been reported that AT&T has been engaged in the sharing of Americans’ phone call records with the NSA.  Reportedly, this has been happening without subpoenas, warrants, or any approval from special a federal court that enforces the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).  It has also allegedly occurred without consumers’ knowledge or consent.  I am concerned that AT&T and the NSA may have been acting outside of the law.  I am especially concerned what this means to the privacy of Illinois residents since AT&T is one of the biggest telecommunications providers for the state. 

Although it is my understanding that AT&T may have received a directive from the Director of National Intelligence (Federal Register: May 12, 2006 [Volume 71, Number 92, Page 27943, Doc 06-4538]) excusing AT&T from the duty of keeping records and liability for specific actions it may be taking, I would like more information on the Internet and phone records AT&T may have provided to the NSA and the access AT&T has provided the NSA to its telecommunications network, if any.

            I am also concerned about the role your company may have played in the removal of H.R. 4943, the Prevention of Fraudulent Access to Phone Records Act from consideration on the House floor.  As you know, the Energy and Commerce Committee recently passed unanimously H.R. 4943, the Prevention of Fraudulent Access to Phone Records Act, which would protect consumers from having their phone calls accessed without their permission as is currently happening.  Although it was scheduled for a vote on the House floor on May 2, 2006, it was pulled because of undisclosed concerns raised with House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert and which I am concerned relate to the current questionable activities in which your company may have been involved.  I respectfully request that you provide me with the answers to the following questions.

Internet Records
1)  Has AT&T ever been approached by the NSA to track the Internet activity of private citizens without their knowledge or consent?
 

2)  If AT&T were to engage in the sharing of any Internet activity of its customer with any governmental agency, what kind of legal certification would it seek before doing so? 
 

3)  Is it AT&T’s position that the 1934 Telecommunications Act allows for the sharing of Internet activity of its customers without their knowledge or consent?  If so, please provide a reference the section of the Act that allows such sharing.
 

4)  Is it AT&T’s policy to alert its customers that may engage in the sharing of their Internet activity?
 

5)  Has AT&T ever been provided with any kind of compensation from the government for providing access to the Internet activity of its customers or others?
 

6)  If AT&T allowed access to its Internet service connections, what kind of Internet activity could be tracked?  Would it be limited to AT&T customers or could it also track the activity of other businesses’ customers?
 

7) Did AT&T give access to its Internet network to the NSA?

Phone Records Sharing
1)  Has AT&T ever been approached by the NSA to share phone records of private citizens without their knowledge or consent?
 

2)  If approached, was any legal certification provided to AT&T from the court that oversees FISA or any other source concerning the sharing of phone records with NSA? 
 

3)  If AT&T were to engage in the sharing of any phone records of its customer with any governmental agency, what kind of legal certification would it seek before doing so? 
 

4)  What protections and procedures do you have in place to ensure that you are not violating any federal laws by sharing private phone records?
 

5)  How would AT&T establish that your customers are “known associates” of al Quaeda, or any other terrorist group, before releasing Americans’ personal phone logs to the NSA?
 

6)  Has AT&T ever been provided with any kind of compensation from the government for providing phone logs?  If so, is this through a contractual relationship?  If so, please provide copies of your contracts.
 

7) Did AT&T share any consumer phone records with the NSA?

Pretexting
1)  What position did your company take on H.R. 4943, the Prevention of Fraudulent Access to Phone Records Act?
 

2)  Who in the U.S. House of Representatives did your company, or representatives for your company, contact to express your position on H.R. 4943?  Please provide the dates, method of contact, and any documents connected to the contact.
 

3)  Who else in elected or appointed governmental positions did you contact to express your company’s position?  Please provide the dates, method of contact, and any documents connected to the contact.
 

4)  Were you contacted by any governmental entities concerning this bill? If so, which ones and what issues were raised?
 

5)  Would H.R. 4943 affect any practice concerning phone records sharing that AT&T is currently or has been engaged in?
 

6)  I appreciate your cooperation and would like your response to the above questions by May 26, 2006. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact my office at 202-225-2111. 

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Jan Schakowsky
Member of Congress

WASHINGTON, DC  - U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, a member of the Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, at a hearing before the Subcommittee today urged her colleagues to pass legislation which would protect Americans from Persistent Organic Pollutants, hazardous chemicals that threaten public health and the environment.

Schakowsky’s opening statement is below:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Solis, for holding this markup today. On March 2nd this committee held the second of two hearings to discuss the threat that Persistent Organic Pollutants, which are commonly referred to as POPs, pose to public health and the environment. We heard from experts who reaffirmed that POPs are exceedingly toxic chemicals that may take years to break down in the environment and can travel long distances.

The use of these chemicals anywhere around the world is a threat to the health of our nation. Effectively protecting the public health from POPs is only possible through international agreements. I believe that we all agree that Congress has a duty to amend our laws so that the U.S. can be an active partner in international efforts to protect the public and the environment from these hazards.

I am concerned, however, that the bill before us today will make it difficult, if not impossible, to properly regulate POPs in the United States. H.R. 4591 seems to have been designed to preempt states’ authority to regulate substances that become subject to the treaty. The bill also sets a new cost-benefit standard that must be met before the U.S. can regulate a newly-listed POP. It is my feeling that the EPA will never be able to regulate such a cost-benefit standard, therefore making it impossible to protect us from additional pollutants. In addition, I am concerned that the bill lacks strong enough language to force a timely implementation of a POPs Convention decision.

I am also disappointed upset about the lack of bipartisan cooperation that preceded this markup. Cooperation on this issue is not only important so that we can protect the health of all of our constituents, but bipartisan cooperation will be necessary when the Stockholm Convention is ratified by the Senate.

Instead of adopting H.R. 4591, I urge the committee to accept the Solis substitute. The Solis bill implements the Convention and its science- based process in an effective, efficient way which supports the intent of the treaty and which will protect health from the effects of the world's most toxic pollutants. It both preserves the sovereignty of the United States and tracks the Stockholm Convention treaty language, which is supported by industry, public health groups and environmental groups, was negotiated under the Clinton Administration and signed by President Bush in a Rose Garden Ceremony in 2001. Its science- based standard supports the intent of the treaty and will help protect public health here at home. The language offered by Ranking Member Solis is what we should adopt today and we should all work to get it to the full House.

WASHINGTON, DC  - U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, during a hearing in the Subcommittee today expressed her support for H.R. 2048, the Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to Repair Act, which would allow consumers to choose the best and most affordable automobile repair shops.

Schakowsky’s opening statement is below:  

I believe this bill addresses the current problems independent repair shops run into when they cannot access the technical information they need to work on cars. This bill would also restore consumers’ right to choose where they want to take their business. 

We have made a number of advances in car design and maintenance through the years.  Although we have a way to go, cars are safer and more environmentally sound.  However, the technological advances have also created some complications for the corner garage and consumers. 

Having car problems is stressful.  Simple repairs are turning out not to be so simple after all.  Even getting a diagnosis may prove impossible and many have found that they cannot take their cars to the mechanics they trust and have been using for years merely because those mechanics can’t get the service information they need – or they can’t get it in a timely fashion.  Highly skilled mechanics are being forced to send their business to dealers because the auto manufacturers have the diagnosis and repair information on lockdown.   

According to AAA, consumers spend almost $200 billion annually to repair and maintain the 200 million cars on the road.  Seventy percent of consumers take their cars to independent repair shops once their warranty expires.  If we do not do something to ensure that the diagnosis and repair information sharing goes more smoothly than it has been, then we are severely limiting consumers’ choice and undermining small businesses who already have the deck stacked against them. 

I believe it is important to protect the trade secrets and intellectual property of auto manufacturers.  The motor vehicle industry is the largest manufacturer in the country and their innovations have helped fuel the economy.  However, I believe that information necessary to diagnose, service, and repair vehicles sold in the United States should be disclosed to car owners, repair shops, and the Federal Trade Commission.  I believe a balance between protecting the rights of manufactures and the rights of the consumer can be found and that H.R. 2048 is on the right track toward striking that balance.  

The reason I decided to cosponsor H.R. 2048 is because a couple of years ago, I met over coffee with a number of small repair shop owners in my district.  Those shop owners and mechanics, shared their stories about how their business is being driven straight to the dealership because of roadblock after roadblock being thrown up by the auto industry.  Even though their shops are more convenient to use and cheaper, they are losing customers.

While I was glad to hear that the stakeholders in H.R. 2048 tried to work out an agreement, it is my understanding that an impasse was reached and that is why we are here today.   As is the case in many of these types of battles, consumers are the ones who pay for industry disputes.  Again, this is ultimately about the consumers for me.  Since the industries involved cannot work out a solution, then I support moving H.R. 2048 through the committee.  We need to ensure that the information provided to the car owners and independent repair shops is easily accessible, accurate, timely, and not priced out of reach. 

CHICAGO, IL - Today marks the deadline for Medicare beneficiaries to enroll in the Administration’s Medicare prescription drug benefit without being penalized. Senator Dick Durbin, and Representatives Rahm Emanuel, Jan Schakowsky, Danny Davis, Dan Lipinski, and seniors and advocates held a press conference to discuss ways to improve the prescription drug benefit so that both seniors and taxpayers receive a fair deal.

“Today marks the official deadline for enrollment into the Bush Administration’s Medicare Prescription drug plan, yet millions of beneficiaries have not yet enrolled. And as a result, millions of seniors will be needlessly taxed for a benefit plan that seems to only benefits drug companies and HMOs,” said Emanuel. “As the deadline comes and goes, it is now more important than ever that we improve the program. We must allow Medicare to directly negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices, saving billions for seniors and taxpayers.”

“Because President Bush and Congressional Republicans stubbornly refused to extend the arbitrary enrollment deadline, one million beneficiaries will be denied coverage this year and millions will have to pay financial penalties that will increase throughout their lifetimes. With a benefit that was constructed by and for the drug companies, all beneficiaries continue to pay unnecessarily high prices under their plans. We must now fix Part D by creating a uniform benefit that requires Medicare to negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices, like the VA does,” said Schakowsky.

This year, the House Government Reform Committee minority released a report showing that the drug prices offered by the 10 leading Medicare drug plans are: 80% higher than the prices negotiated by the federal government, 60% higher than prices in Canada, and 3% higher than at Costco. The Medicare Prescription Drugs Savings and Choice Act would lower those prices dramatically and pass the savings on to seniors.

“We can use good old fashioned negotiating power to achieve savings since the laws of economics say that if one buys in bulk, the price will come down,” said Durbin. “The Medicare Prescription Drug Savings Act would ensure that Medicare beneficiaries receive the benefits of their purchasing power.”

The Medicare Prescription Drugs Savings and Choice Act, introduced by Representative Schakowsky and Senator Durbin would instruct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to offer a nationwide, Medicare administered, drug plan in addition to the plans being offered by the private insurers.  The legislation would also require that HHS negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices, like the Veterans Administration does.

For months, the members of the Chicago delegation called on the President to extend the Medicare deadline to give seniors and people with disabilities more time to navigate the confusing and chaotic program without having to face a financial penalty. Despite the Congressional Budget Office estimates that an extension would have allowed for an additional one million seniors to enroll, the Bush Administration refused.

“At the more than three dozen informational seminars I have held for seniors to help them with this program, my heart has gone out to all those who are understandably bewildered,” Lipinski said. “It is unconscionable that Congress and the Administration have refused to act to change this program or even to give Seniors the benefit of extra time to sign up without a penalty.”

“Spin and hype aside the sign up process for Part D has been a disaster. It is time to step back, listen to what seniors are saying and revise the program to meet the real needs of retirees,” said Davis.

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, today linked America’s dependence on foreign oil to the rise in gasoline prices across the United States at a hearing on world crude oil prices before the Committee. The price of gasoline and the price of crude oil have doubled since 2001, while oil imports are up 14 percent. Twenty percent of those imports are from the Middle East.

Schakowsky’s opening statement is below:

Mr. Chairman, record gasoline prices have sent this Committee scurrying to analyze every aspect of the domestic and world energy markets. With no disrespect at all to our witnesses, I think this is a poor substitute for action on sensible, ready-to-go proposals which have languished because of lack of interest by the Republican leadership.

For the commuter who must drive 90 minutes to work, the senior living on a fixed income, or the florist who depends on their car to make deliveries, this is not an acceptable answer. The average household with children will spend about $3,343 on transportation fuel costs this year, a 75 percent increase over 2001 costs. Memorial Day and the summer driving season are only days away.

Let’s be clear: this energy crisis was foreseeable. This Committee passed an energy bill last year which the Energy Information Administration said would raise prices. It has. Republicans voted three times against giving the FTC the authority to regulate and prosecute oil and gas companies that price gouge – once in this Committee and twice on the floor. I, and other Democrats, have written to President Bush and Vice President Cheney, both oil men, many times and asked them to bring in energy executives to develop a plan to immediately bring prices down. They have not once stood up to their big oil buddies. Gasoline prices have doubled under their watch as the oil companies have reported their highest profits ever. In fact, ever covering all of their costs last year, oil companies took profits last year amounting to $1,000 per household in America. The golden parachute package for the Exxon Mobil CEO cost every household $3.

Prices at the pump in the U.S. have risen in part because the U.S. has become more dependent on foreign oil at an exponentially increasing rate. Since the Bush Administration took office, oil imports have increased over 14 percent and we now import about 20 percent of our oil from the Middle East. The President has again missed the urgency of this crisis, his budget only increases funding for renewable energy sources by 0.2% this year and cuts funding for critical efficiency programs like weatherization assistance, EnergyStar, and the Clean Cities program. Democrats have a plan to make the U.S. independent of Middle Eastern oil within the next ten years.

The Bush Administration and Congress have the power, but are not demonstrating the will, to limit escalating fuel prices. We should take action today to prevent energy companies from making windfall profits off of the backs of consumers, to provide Detroit with the resources it needs to make fuel-flexible cars, and to increase the production of renewable fuels and use of efficient technology that will wean the U.S. off of foreign oil.

Congressman Stupak has a bill that would regulate off-market trading and increase penalties for market manipulation – we should quickly pass that bill.

Consumer confidence in Congress and the President is tanking. Showing concern about the energy crisis is not enough, consumers want action and relief at the pump.

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, today criticized the Bush Administration for waiting six years before asking Congress for the authority to make automobiles more fuel efficient at a hearing on fuel economy standards before the full Committee. Representative Schakowsky also called on the Administration to take more immediate action to lower gas prices.

Representative Schakowsky’s opening statement is below:

We should have held this hearing six years ago when the President took office. Instead, the Republican Congress has rubberstamped the Bush Administration’s energy policies, which has helped the oil and gas companies earn record profits as they raise gasoline prices to record levels.

I just came from Chicago, where my constituents are paying nearly $3.00 for a gallon of regular gasoline. It is no wonder that gasoline prices have gone up – this Committee passed an energy bill that the EIA said would raise prices. It did.

The Bush Administration has now launched a PR campaign to distance itself from the energy crisis it created. In his “more of the same” campaign, President Bush recently announced a series of energy policies that were already happening.

Both last year’s Energy Policy Act and Science, State, Justice and Commerce Act directed the FTC to investigate for price gouging. This Committee is expecting that report within the month. Ignoring that action, last week, President Bush directed his Administration to investigate for price gouging. However, even after issuing this direction on Tuesday, three days later the President said that his “inclination and instincts” assure him that there’s no “rip off taking place.” Quick investigation.

Now, the Bush Administration is asking Congress to grant it authority it already has. If President Bush was willing, NHTSA could today raise fuel economy standards for passenger cars. We should be debating how quickly and at what level the Bush Administration should raise CAFE standards for passenger cars. If the Administration raised CAFE standards to 33 miles per gallon and helped the auto manufacturers reach that goal, we would save over 2.5 million barrels of oil each day, eliminating our need for Persian Gulf oil. Today we find out that the Bush Administration did not believe it had the authority to raise CAFE standards for passenger cars – but it took six years to request the authority to act.

President Bush is dragging his feet. There are several ways to keep gas prices down in the short-term: holding individual oil and gas companies that price gouge accountable, and ensuring that oil companies do not make windfall profits off of the backs of consumers.

The American people cannot afford to pay $400 million to fund the golden parachutes of oil executives. These record gasoline prices go far beyond supply and demand – consumers are being exploited at the pump. Oil prices are up $30 from one year ago, even though the crude oil supply is at a five year high.

A comprehensive energy strategy to reduce gasoline prices must include efficiency and conservation. President Bush has cut funding for major efficiency programs in his FY07 budget including weatherization, EnergyStar, and the Clean Cities program. The President’s commitment to efficiency should be judged by his deeds, not by his words.

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, today raised concerns about the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act in a mark-up before the Energy and Commerce Committee. Schakowsky said the bill would take away local control of cable services, and it could raise rates and deprive some services areas.

Representative Schakowsky’s full opening statement is below:

No one is questioning the need for consumer choice and competition in cable services.  Those are important goals. Currently, most communities are served by the cable industry’s quasi-monopolies.  However, “competition” in cable shouldn’t have the effect of raising rates, cutting consumer protections, reducing educational and local access programming, and eliminating local rights.  But that is what this bill, as it is currently written, will do.  “Competition” shouldn’t be about providing lucrative markets with several cable service options and leaving those in poorer neighborhoods with low-quality service and ever increasing cable bills – which, again, is what the COPE Act would allow.  

I have heard from every municipality in my district and they are all concerned about what will happen if the COPE Act becomes law.  While there may have been problems with local franchises, this bill is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.  It would take away nearly all local rights and control over how new cable services are rolled out – and how old ones are maintained.  Telling them you’re coming to town is not enough – there has to be some recourse for towns and consumers that get raw deals.  Do we really think the Federal Communications Commission should be charged with resolving consumer complaints?  Is the FCC going to come out to Skokie, Illinois and resolve problems that may arise concerning the town’s public right-of-way?  And, does the FCC have the resources – both in budget and personnel – to do so? 

I am also greatly concerned that there are not adequate protections in this bill for the Internet as we know it.  We have already been told by the telecom industry that they plan to operate their own form of censorship, slowing down or speeding up delivery of content depending on its relationship to the provider.  I am concerned about emails being blocked from advocacy groups and the startups being shut down by high fees to get their websites delivered at an adequate speed, to name just a couple examples.  Again, we have been warned and if we don’t do something to stop it now, the freedom and innovation that has made the Internet what it is today will be lost.  

The telecommunications industry has been blinded by the dollar signs in their eyes and it is our duty as legislators to remind them that their profits come with the price of being responsible to communities, being responsible to consumers, and being good corporate citizens.    I urge my colleagues to agree that as we consider the COPE Act today, we must consider what harm this bill will do to our communities and our constituents if it is not improved.  I will be offering an amendment to help maintain state rights to protect residents from bad service and privacy invasions and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

CHICAGO, IL -- U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky today released the below statement calling for President Bush and Congress to take action to slow climate change and clean up the Great Lakes this Earth Day:

This Earth Day, dramatic environmental changes remind us of the immediate threat climate change is posing to our health and safety. The polar ice caps are melting at an unprecedented rate, threatening coastal communities that are home to billions. Violent storms off our shores are increasing in intensity and regularity. Whole ecosystems are migrating north, threatening regional economies and cultures.

President Bush has let industry dictate his environmental policy. This year, the President has proposed giving polluters more leeway by cutting funding for clean air and water programs and delaying controls on mercury emissions.

The President has failed to meet his commitment to restore our Great Lakes. President Bush has underfunded essential Great Lakes clean-up programs, failed to enforce the Clean Water Act, and left the door open to dangerous oil and gas drilling. As we know from the many beach closings we experience each summer, there is an urgent need for President Bush to protect the world’s largest freshwater resources.

When it comes to climate change, this Administration has placed more credibility in the prose of fiction writer Michael Crichton than in the research of leading scientists. In fact, some scientists within the Bush Administration who have documented climate change claim that they were silenced by political appointees. President Bush has endangered us all by making a mockery out of such an urgent problem.

States and cities are stepping up to act where the Bush Administration has not, establishing cap and trade programs, working towards carbon neutrality, and investing in renewable energy sources. We all share an obligation to promote conservation and to reduce our environmental footprint.

This Earth Day, the United States must reclaim the mantle of conservation and environmentalism, finding aggressive ways to slow climate change and encouraging developing countries to follow course. If the Bush Administration continues to put politics before science, all of humanity will pay a price.