Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the dangers posed to the public health by arsenic-treated wood. Most of

the lumber sold for outdoor use in our schools' playgrounds and in our own private backyard decks is pressure-treated and injected with toxins to preserve the wood and prevent insect infestation. The most common wood preservative and pesticide used is chromated copper arsenate (CCA), which is 22 percent pure arsenic. The inorganic arsenic used in CCA-treated wood is a known carcinogen and has been linked to skin, bladder, liver and lung cancers. The arsenic in CCA-treated wood has been shown to leach out, ending up in the soil in our back yards and playgrounds, rubbing off onto our clothing, and wiping off onto our hands.

Today, I am re-introducing a bill to begin to remove this threat, the Arsenic-Treated Wood Prohibition Act. This bill will prohibit the use of CCA treated lumber once and for all. This legislation will protect children and families by mandating the phase out of arsenic in pressure treated lumber and will ensure that arsenic treated lumber is disposed of safely. Specifically, my bill will: phase-out the use of arsenic- treated wood in residential settings; require the disposal of arsenic- treated wood in lined landfills to prevent contamination of groundwater; require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to finally complete its risk assessment regarding arsenic-treated wood; provide monetary assistance to schools and local communities to remove arsenic-treated wood from their playgrounds; and direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to complete its mitigation studies to determine the effect of sealants in preventing exposure to residues of CCA on treated wood. This bill would save lives and protect our environment.

Recent actions by the CPSC and preliminary findings released by the EPA make it even more important that we in Congress pass this legislation. Despite their own findings found that of every 1 million children exposed to the treated wood three times every week for five years, two to 100 of them might develop lung or bladder cancer later in life, the CPSC recently decided to deny a petition to ban the use of arsenic-treated wood in playground equipment and to recall existing playground structures using CCA-treated wood (HP-01-3). In their statements denying the petition, the CPSC Commissioners cited that a voluntary agreement between the EPA and CCA-treated wood manufacturer's to voluntarily phase-out the production of the product. The Commissioners reasoned that rulemaking on the subject would be both unnecessary and redundant. They further cited that the CPSC did not have the authority to initiate a recall before the risk assumptions made in the Commission's staff study could be verified.

On November 13, a draft probabilistic exposure assessment released by the EPA confirmed the CPSC's earlier findings. The study concluded that the cancer risk for children who repeatedly come in contact with commonly found playground equipment and decks made of arsenic-treated wood is considerably greater than EPA officials indicated last year. The agency's preliminary findings show that 90 percent of children repeatedly exposed to arsenic-treated wood face a greater than one-in-1 million risk of cancer. The risk associated with exposure to arsenic- treated wood appears to be up to 100 times greater in the warmer climates of southern States than in the general population since children tend to spend more time playing outdoors. This risk passes the EPA's historic threshold of concern about the effects of toxic chemicals.

In light of these facts, I believe that we must take immediate action. I believe that a voluntary phase-out of this potentially harmful product is not adequate. Initiating a ban on CCA-treated wood would greatly increase public awareness of the dangers that existing arsenic-treated wood presents. By failing to ban CCA-treated wood, we are ignoring the responsibility to protect and promote the best interests of consumers. I strongly believe that a legislative mandate permanently banning its use and providing for its safe removal is critical to ensuring the safety of children and their families.

The effect of arsenic in our environment is undeniable: it kills. Arsenic-treated wood is a danger to the future health of America's families. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this very important effort to remove this threat.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill, the Business Links Act of 2003, that would provide needed resources to parents facing serious barriers to employment. The bill would provide grants for transitional jobs programs in order to support State efforts to help TANF recipients find work. Transitional jobs can provide the right combination of support, work, and vocational training and have the potential to turn many job seekers into permanent wage earners.

I would like to thank my colleagues who have joined me as original cosponsors on this bill. I would also like to commend Senator Jeff Bingaman who has already introduced companion legislation, S. 786, in the Senate.

This legislation would replace the TANF bonus grants currently provided to States and instead provide $200 million for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 for grants to be awarded to nonprofit organizations, local workforce investment boards, States, localities, and Indian tribes. The grant funds could be used either to promote business links by improving employee wages and job skills in partnership with employers or to provide fully subsidized wage-paying jobs to individuals who have been unemployed because of limited skills or other barriers. The legislation also includes worker protection provisions that, among other things, prohibit transitional job participants from displacing or replacing existing workers or positions and provide participants the same worker protections that all other workers receive. Parents who are currently receiving or have recently received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), parents who are at risk of needing TANF, individuals with disabilities, and unemployed, noncustodial parents who are having difficulty meeting their child support obligations would be eligible to participate in transitional jobs programs.

Transitional jobs programs would provide intensive case management and access to needed support services such as vocational skills training, basic education, job placement services, and child care to all participants. Transitional jobs programs, which are aimed at helping those who have limited English proficiency and other barriers to employment, can be particularly effective for the hardest to serve welfare recipients. Program participants must work 30 to 40 hours a week, unless they have a child under the age of six, and participation is time limited to between six and 24 months. The goal of transitional jobs programs is to prepare and help participants find unsubsidized, permanent jobs. Because of the individual attention given to each transitional job holder, various programs across the country

have proven very successful in achieving that goal. From January 2000 to July 2001, a Chicago program known as Transitional Community Service Jobs placed over 75 percent of its participants in unsubsidized jobs, more than one-third of which paid over $8.00 an hour.

Many cities and communities across the country have implemented transitional jobs programs because they understand the importance of helping those facing serious barriers to employment, and they recognize the long-term benefits of investing in a future workforce that is well- trained and able to contribute to the economy. However, because the Welfare-to-Work funds that help support transitional jobs programs are nearly exhausted and because of tight State budgets, many of those successful programs are at risk. This bill would provide a more stable funding source to allow many of these programs to survive, enable the development of new programs, and require a rigorous evaluation of funded programs.

I am proud that this bill would help those who are having a difficult time supporting their children by providing them with resources and skills that will help them immediately, as well as sustain them in the future. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the Business Links Act of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, a little history lesson. August 17, 1989, front page of the Chicago Tribune, outside the Copernicus Senior Center in Chicago. These are the constituents of Congressman Dan Rostenkowski who is in this car.

They are not happy with their Congressman, and they are not happy with the catastrophic health care bill.

When the Congressman escaped from his car, a reporter asked him if he sympathized with the seniors who were mad about this bill, and he said, ``No, they do not understand.'' But, unfortunately, it was not the seniors who did not get it. It was the Congressman. Three months later that bill was repealed.

A big mistake was made. This Congress overwhelmingly passed the catastrophic. Everyone on Capitol Hill liked it including the AARP. They did not check with the seniors, and we are about to make the same mistake tonight. A thousand pages and more, 40 years of Medicare, but 40 hours to read this bill.

I tell you, if you vote for this, you better get your running shoes. The senior citizens will be after you.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Earlier the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) waxed poetic about the deep meaning of a movie, of all things, and about the centrality of choice in our democracy. And I agree about choice.

But I have to tell the Members in all the years that I have worked for and with seniors, never, not once, did a senior citizen come up to me and say ``What I really want is a choice of insurance plans. I want more salesmen to call me, send me those brochures, include all those charts and graphs and fine print. I cannot wait to sit down each year and choose among HMOs.'' Never, not once.

Seniors want a choice all right. They want to choose their doctor. They want to choose the drug that their doctor prescribes for them. They want the choice of their pharmacy if they want to go to their neighborhood pharmacy. They want the kind of real choice they get under Medicare, the Medicare that they know and love. And that is the kind of choice they will lose under this bill and under a pile of brochures that they are going to be burdened with. But do the Members know what? That is okay. I want to tell the Members it is okay because the seniors know the difference between real choices and phony choices. And we can put all kinds of fancy pictures on it, but senior citizens will know, and I want to tell the Members that it is to their peril that they vote for this legislation and give seniors a phony choice.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

I rise in strong support and as an original cosponsor of H.R. 3140, the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act. I am pleased that the House is taking action on this important measure before the end of the legislative session.

This is an important consumer rights issue. Thirty-six million Americans use contact lenses, and Congress must address the regulatory issues that impact the rights of those consumers and their ability to purchase contact lenses from their preferred vendors. We have a duty to make sure that consumers' interests are being met; that they have access to affordable and safe contact lenses; and that uniform standards regulate this process nationwide.

Several of my colleagues have spent a great deal of time studying the subject, including, of course, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark); and I want to commend and thank them for their leadership.

As a contact lens user myself, I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in the debate and passage of this legislation and appreciate the opportunity to work with those who have crafted this legislation, as well as the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). We appreciate the support also of the American Optometric Association for supporting this proconsumer legislation.

This bill will change current law to provide what we all agree to be needed changes, so that consumers are explicitly entitled to a copy of their contact lens prescription from their doctor. That way, they will have the freedom to shop around to get the best deal possible for filling their contact lens needs.

There have been reports of eye care providers unnecessarily preventing or delaying consumer access to their own prescriptions. There is some suggestion patients may not even know they are entitled to ask for their prescription. Clearly, we need to address those problems, and the legislation we are discussing today includes strong language guaranteeing those rights.

The bill requires eye doctors and optometrists to provide parents with a copy of their contact lens prescription, regardless of whether or not the patient asks for a copy. Under this measure, eye doctors and other prescribers are prohibited from requiring that consumers buy contact lenses from them as a condition of performing an eye exam or providing the prescription.

While consumers have a right to shop for the best deal when purchasing contact lenses, Congress, doctors, and industry all have a duty and an interest in making sure that patient safety is not compromised in the process. The Food and Drug Administration mandates that contact lens sales require a valid prescription from an eye care professional. With the increasing prevalence of mail order contact lens providers, whether through the Internet or 1-800 numbers, I believe it is important we give consumers expanded access while adhering to the FDA requirements.

In the interest of fairness to consumers and doctors, this legislation establishes clear uniform rules that will guarantee fairness and safety to contact lens consumers in every State, regardless of existing laws.

The bill creates a verification system that will ensure prompt filling of contact lens prescriptions. Under the legislation, when consumers place orders with third-party contact lens vendors, those vendors must verify the prescription with their doctors. Their doctors will then have 8 hours to respond. If they do not, the prescription will be deemed valid by the vendor and the order filled. These safeguards, coupled with time requirements, will ensure prompt and safe access to contact lenses at affordable prices for consumers.

This legislation requires the FTC to issue rules implementing the bill's requirements and empowers the FTC to enforce these rules. The new rules will become effective within 60 days of enactment.

I want to again commend those who worked to bring this proconsumer legislation to the floor, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the lead Democratic cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), who worked hard on this legislation and over a long period of time.

(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall no. 570, Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 569, rule to recommit the Conference Report on H.R. 2215, rollcall No. 571, Markey motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 6, rollcall No. 572, Woolsey Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 1308, rollcall No. 5731, Brown (OH) Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 1, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for gathering us here tonight to talk about an issue that is very much in the minds of the American people. Where is our $87 billion going?

And I do not know if the gentleman has seen Newsweek this week. The cover story is ``Bush's $87 Billion Mess. Special Investigation. Waste, Chaos and Cronyism: The Real Cost of Rebuilding Iraq.'' And I thought I would just refer to some of this.

Now, I know that the President has cautioned us not to believe what we read and that we should not emphasize the negative, but we should look for the positive and that you cannot believe all these negative news reports. And I do not know if he is necessarily questioning this Newsweek investigative report, but I thought, in any case, that because it is a reputable magazine that I might refer to some of the findings here.

The headline of the story is ``The $87 Billion Money Pit. It is the boldest reconstruction project since the Marshall Plan. And we cannot afford to fail. But where are the billions really going,'' is the question that it asks.

So let me just read a little bit of this. This says, ``No doubt, reconstructing postwar Iraq is a brutally hard and hazardous task. Sabotage has already destroyed some 700 power transmission towers. But George W. Bush, who has staked his Nation's credibility and perhaps his Presidency on success in Iraq, has no choice but to set things right.

``Iraqis like to point out that after the 1991 war, Saddam restored the badly destroyed electricity grid in only 3 months. Some 6 months after Bush declared an end to major hostilities, a much more ambitious and costly American effort has yet to get to that point. It is only in recent weeks that the coalition amped up the power generation level that Saddam achieved last March; 4400 megawatts for the country, though it has since dropped back.''

I just wanted to emphasize that point because we are told now that electricity is at the level that Saddam had but, in fact, it has dropped back.

``True, Saddam did not have a guerilla war to contend with, and his power infrastructure was in much better shape than the Americans found it, but he also had fewer resources.

``Six months ago the administration decided to cut corners on normal bidding procedures and hand over large contracts to defense contractors like Bechtel and Halliburton on a limited bid or no-bid basis. It bypassed the Iraqis and didn't worry much about accountability to Congress. The plan was for `blitzkrieg' reconstruction. But by sacrificing accountability for speed,'' Newsweek says, ``America is not achieving either very well right now. For months no one has seemed to be fully in charge of postwar planning. There has been so little transparency that even at the White House, `it was almost impossible to get a sense of what was happening,' on the power problems, says one official privy to the discussions.

``Numerous allegations of overspending, favoritism and corruption have surfaced. Halliburton, a major defense contractor once run by Vice President Dick Cheney,'' as earlier statements indicated, he still is benefiting from his relationship to Halliburton, ``Halliburton has been accused of gouging prices on imported fuel, charging $1.59 a gallon while the Iraqis `get up to speed,' when the Iraqi national oil company says it can now buy it at no more than 98 cents a gallon. The difference is about $300 million. Cronies of Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi, Newsweek has learned, were recently awarded a large chunk of a major contract for mobile telecommunications networks.''

So it is a really interesting article. There is a lot in here. But one of the other things that it has is some charts. ``What critics say. Waste not.'' This is in a chart. It says, ``Congressional Democrats are raising eyebrows at price tags.'' Some examples: Repair. U.S. engineers estimated $15 million for repairs on a cement plant in northern Iraq. The project was given to local Iraqis instead. Remember it was $15 million was the estimate from the U.S. contractors. It was done by local Iraqis for $80,000. $15 million; $80,000.

Rebuild. Big business contractors refurbished 20 police stations in Basra for $25 million. An Iraqi official contends locals could have done it for $5 million.

Also talks about Iraqis versus U.S. jobs, local labor. It is cheaper to hire Iraqis for reconstruction projects. Unequal pay. Non-Iraqi security guards make $1,200 a day working for U.S. companies in Iraq, 144 times that of Iraqi guards who make $250 a month. So for a British or U.S. security guard $1,200 per day, an Iraqi security guard, $8.33 a day.

Then it talks about the Iraq's luxury items. These are some of the expenditures. I think we actually may have cut some of them out, but these were the proposals. They are talking about a kind of feeding frenzy going on for contractors in Iraq. At the same time, and I am glad that the gentleman from Ohio pointed out a number of things that are being shortchanged, like body armor for our soldiers, but a proposal that we may be still going through in our $87 billion, I am not sure, $33,000 per pickup truck, or $2.64 million for 80 vehicles, $9 million to create zip codes, a numbered postal system throughout the country. $6,000 per radio or phone. That added up to $3.6 million. $50,000 per prison bed, way more than we spend here in the United States. $400 million for two new 4,000-bed prisons. And it goes on and on.

A couple more things I just wanted to point out, if I could, there is a section called waste, fraud, and abuse. It says American companies are barred by law from paying bribes or taking kickbacks abroad, but Iraq is still largely a lawless place. And one company director for a British firm doing business in Baghdad said that makes all the difference. Quote, ``I have never seen corruption like this by expatriate businessmen. It is like a feeding frenzy,'' he says. One prominent Iraqi businessman said he was told he had to raise his bid by $750,000 to get a major contract so long as he kicked back that amount to the contractors rep. The businessman refused to identify the contractor, but did say, quote, ``No Iraqi would ask for a bribe that big,'' unquote.

At the very least, Americans have a right to know exactly what is going on, how is our money being spent, a completely transparent process. Because if we are going to send our young men and women over there who put their lives at risk every day without the proper equipment that could save their lives, and all of these billions and billions of dollars are going to private contractors who are responsible for taking care of them and providing what is needed in Iraq in some cases, that is part of what we hire some contractors for, then for heaven's sakes, we want accounting of that.

If it is too much, then we have got to cut that price. I mean, $87 billion, no wonder the American people had sticker shock and no wonder when they read stories like this they are saying why should we be handing this check to this administration when they cannot even be trusted to take care of our young men and women in uniform but they are more than taking care of and padding the pockets of their good friends at Halliburton and Bechtel and still not getting the job done and still not providing the electricity and still not making Iraq more safe for the Iraqi people yet.

Now that may be happening but at what cost to the American people. We just want to know. And I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for letting us ask that question.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for gathering us together to call for some accountability, some of the remarks of the majority leader of the House, but actually to make an even more important point, I think. When I was elected to this great body in 1998 and came to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1999, I was under no illusion that the elected Members would agree on every issue. I looked forward to the vigorous debate that would take place between Republicans and Democrats and even among Members of my own party and would expect that since free and open debate is not only a tradition of this Congress, it is, perhaps, the most highly-valued principle of our great democracy.

The very first amendment to our Constitution is freedom of speech, our precious right to say exactly what we believe, even when those words challenge those who are in power. Maybe I should say particularly when those words challenge people that are in power.

Voltaire's words, quote, ``I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,'' is the spirit of the first amendment. And all of our great Presidents have defended that right to speak one's mind in this great country. And one of those eloquent statements was made by a Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt, who said, ``To announce that there must be no criticism of the President or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.'' Very strong words.

But now in an environment in which one party dominates the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency, and even the Supreme Court, those who challenge the policy decisions of the Republicans are being accused of being unpatriotic, of aiding and abetting terrorists, disloyalty to the Commander in Chief, of needing to apologize for voicing their views. And leading that effort has been the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). And I think it is time to call him to account for his hypocritical comments and his effort to stifle important and legitimate debate.

We are now engaged in war, in a war in Iraq. And our young men and women as well as innocent Iraqis are dying every day. There is nothing more serious than this. Many of us have been critical of the decision to engage in a preemptive war of choice, not necessity, of the poor planning, of the lack of proper equipment provided to our troops, of the lack of accountability of the billions of dollars being spent, more than a billion per week, much of which has gone to friends of this administration and not to provide things like clean water and modern body armor to our troops. There are legitimate issues to raise whether one agrees or not.

But rather than deal with the substance, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has, to put it bluntly, slimed the questioners. On March 20 of this year, Mr. DeLay said, quote, ``This destructive rhetoric does nothing more than demoralize our troops and second-guess our Commander in Chief,'' unquote. But in May of 1999 while our troops were there fighting against genocide and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, that same gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, quote, ``It is a flawed policy, and it was flawed to go in. I think this President is one of the least effective Presidents of my lifetime. He has hollowed out our forces while running around the world with these adventures.''

It was perfectly fine then for him to make this critical and, I would argue, somewhat intemperate comment about his Commander in Chief in 1999 while our troops were engaged in conflict. But not now. Oh, no.

Last week during the debate on handing another $87 billion to this administration that cannot seem to provide enough fresh water or sunscreen to our troops, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, ``Let me just say that the old debating tactics of `I support the troops but' is just not going to cut it this time. If you support the war, and you support the troops, you must, you must vote for this bill.''

Well, that is a very, very different story, again, from what he said in 1999. Our leader, the Republican majority leader, came to the floor of this house, stood probably over there, and said to this body, quote, ``This is a very difficult speech for me to make because I normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that they are doing, but, I cannot support a failed foreign policy.''

Now last week, he is saying ``no buts,'' and in 1999 he was all about ``but he could not support a failed foreign policy.''

Mr. DeLay can say what he wants because that is his right, not only as the majority leader or an elected Representative, but because that is the right of every American. But I have the right and we have the right, and I think an obligation, to demand that he act in the spirit of the oath that he took to uphold the Constitution, to take responsibility for the hypocritical and, I would say, unpatriotic remarks he has made for the purpose of demeaning and defeating his critics and critics of the failed policies of the Republican administration and Republican Congressional leaders.

I urge him, once again, to heed the wise words of the President from his own party, Teddy Roosevelt and let me repeat that quote, he said, Teddy Roosevelt, ``To announce that there must be no criticism of the President or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to Dr. Tonda Hughes, who was recently named to the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame for her scientific contributions and advocacy in lesbian health.

Dr. Hughes has spent over a decade conducting research on the health needs of lesbian women. She is currently conducting the first long-term assessment of lesbian women's drinking patterns, the results of which will have important policy implications for treatment and prevention. Lesbian health has been largely ignored by scientists, and Dr. Hughes' work represents much-needed efforts to better the lives of lesbian Americans and all Americans.

Dr. Hughes is an associate professor of nursing at the University of Illinois at Chicago and is the director of research for the University's Center of Excellence in Women's Health. She has published professional journal articles, book chapters, and government monographs. In addition to her scholarly work, Dr. Hughes serves on advisory boards for several Chicago-area health foundations.

Each year since 1991, the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame has honored members of the Chicago lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. The only municipal hall of fame of its kind, the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame recognizes members of the Chicago community whose volunteer and professional activities have enriched the lives of gay and lesbian residents and the city of Chicago as a whole.

I congratulate Dr. Tonda Hughes for this honor and applaud her important research and the beneficial effects her work has had on the well-being of lesbian women in Chicago and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the record a resolution passed by the City Council of Chicago calling on Congress to actively work for the repeal of sections of the PATRIOT Act that ``violate fundamental rights and liberties as stated in the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments.'' This resolution was passed on October 1, 2003.

I supported this resolution and I want to thank Aldermen Helen Shiller, Joe Moore, Freddrenna Lyle, and Ricardo Munoz for introducing it. I would also like to recognize and thank the City Council of Evanston and the President and Board of Trustees of Wilmette for passing similar resolutions.

I voted against the PATRIOT Act two years ago and I continue to remain skeptical of its effectiveness at keeping us safe. I believe the PATRIOT Act violates our civil liberties, our right to due process, and unnecessarily targets immigrants. Therefore, I am pleased to join with the Chicago City Council in affirming the rights of all people living within Chicago and the country and in saying that we must repeal the PATRIOT Act.

The following is the resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Chicago:

Resolution on the USA PATRIOT Act and Related Executive Orders

Whereas, the City of Chicago houses a diverse population,

including citizens of other nations, whose contributions to

the community are vital to its character and function; and

Whereas, the United States Constitution guarantees certain

fundamental rights including: freedom of religion, speech,

assembly and privacy; protection from unreasonable searches

and seizures; due process and equal protection to any person;

equality before the law and the presumption of innocence;

access to counsel in judicial proceedings; and a fair, speedy

and public trial; and

Whereas, the USA PATRIOT Act signed by George W. Bush on

October 26, 2001, in the opinion of many American, contains a

number of provisions that undermine the above mentioned

rights and which fundamentally alter our civil liberties

without increasing our security; and

Whereas, examples of the provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act

and Executive orders that may undermine the constitution and

the rights and civil liberties of Chicago residents include:

A significant expansion of the government's ability to

access sensitive medical, mental health, financial and

educational records about individuals; and lowers the burden

of proof required to conduct secret searches and telephone

and Internet surveillance

Giving law enforcement expanded authority to obtain library

records, and prohibits librarians from informing patrons of

monitoring or information requests

Giving the Attorney General and the Secretary of State the

power to designate domestic groups, including religious and

political organizations, as ``terrorist organizations''

Granting the Attorney General the power to subject citizens

of other nations to indefinite detention or deportation even

if they have not committed a crime

Authorizing eavesdropping on confidential communications

between lawyers and their clients in federal custody

Limiting disclosure of public documents and records under

the Freedom of Information Act; and

Whereas, the Department of Justice interpretations of this

Act and these Executive Orders particularly target

immigrants, including Hispanics, people of Middle Eastern and

South Asian descent and citizens of other nations, thereby

potentially encouraging racial profiling by law enforcement

and the unintended consequence of increase in hate crimes by

individuals in our community; and

Whereas, almost 200 other cities throughout the country

have enacted resolutions reaffirming support for civil rights

and civil liberties in the face of government policies that

threaten these values, and are demanding accountability from

federal agencies regarding the use of these new powers; now

therefore be it

Resolved, That the City of Chicago joins the almost 200

other U.S. cities and affirms its strong opposition to

terrorism, and also affirms that any efforts to end terrorism

not be waged at the expense of the fundamental civil rights

and liberties of the people of Chicago, the United States and

the World; and be it further

Resolved, That the City of Chicago affirms the rights of

all people, including United States citizens and citizens of

other nations, living within the City in accordance with the

Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution by lawfully

resisting every effort to erode those rights and

protections including: freedom of religion, speech,

assembly and privacy; protection from unreasonable

searches and seizures; due process and equal protection to

any person; equality before the law and the

presumption of innocence; access to counsel in judicial

proceedings; and fair, speedy and public trial; and be it

further

Resolved, that the members of the City Council of the City

of Chicago call on our United States Representatives and

Senators to monitor the implementation of the U.S. Patriot

Act and the Orders in furtherance thereof and actively work

for the repeal of only those sections of the Act and those

orders that violate fundamental rights and liberties as

stated in the US Constitution and its Amendments by sending a

copy of this resolution to the Illinois delegation to

Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that today I am reintroducing the ``Save Our Homes Act.'' I want to thank my colleagues Maxine Waters, Bernard Sanders, Julia Carson, James McGovern, Peter DeFazio, Luis Gutierrez, Louise Slaughter, Barbara Lee, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Donald Payne, Major Owens, Henry Waxman, Frank Pallone, Lynn Woolsey, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Madeleine Bordallo, Raul Grijalva, George Miller, Dennis Kucinich, Bobby Rush, Marcy Kaptur, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Chris Bell, Gene Green, Michael Honda, Donna Christensen, and Robert Brady for joining me today as original cosponsors of this legislation.

The Save Our Homes Act would help protect homebuyers from unscrupulous lenders and brokers by creating strong new protections for homeowners throughout the country. The Save Our Homes Act provides a floor, not a ceiling for consumer protections. Strong States and local anti-predatory lending laws would not be preempted by this legislation. The Save Our Homes Act is supported by leading consumer rights organizations, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), National People's Action, and National Community Reinvestment Coalition. This is the strongest anti-predatory lending bill in Congress

The Coalition for Responsible Lending estimates that homeowners lose $9.1 billion annually due to predatory loans. In Chicago, foreclosures increased by 74 percent between 1993 and 2001. Remarkably, over that same time period, foreclosures in the subprime market increased by 500 percent. Half of all the foreclosures occurred within 2 years of origination, signaling fraudulent and abusive lending practices. Under the leadership of Mayor Daley and Governor Blagojevich, Illinois and the City of Chicago have passed tough anti-predatory lending laws. Nevertheless, under current Federal law, State and local governments cannot stop some abusive lending practices. In addition, most States do not have strong anti-predatory lending laws. My legislation would close these loopholes and ensure that all homeowners, in every State, are protected from predatory lenders and brokers.

We are all united in support of homeownership. However, supporting homeownership is not enough; we need to make sure people are able to stay in their homes. That is why we need to crackdown on predatory lenders and brokers.

Predatory lenders and brokers are out to make a fast buck on the backs of the elderly, homeowners in financial distress, low-income families and people of color. Predatory lenders are thieves, preying on consumers who are house rich, but cash poor. They don't wear ski masks or hold a gun to your head. They come knocking on your door with neckties and loan papers, charge you credit card high interest rates, and steal the equity, that you've built in your home.

People living in underserved communities have a difficult time obtaining conventional loans. Despite all the progress that has been made, redlining continues to be a major problem. In 2000, HUD completed a study that found that borrowers in upper income African American neighborhoods, who would easily qualify for conventional, low rate loans, were twice as likely as homeowners in low-income white neighborhoods to receive subprime refinance loans.

Of course, not all subprime lending is abusive and predatory. Responsible subprime lending expands homeownership opportunities for those who cannot qualify for conventional loans. However, it is clear that abusive practices are a major problem in the subprime industry. People who turn to subprime lenders are more likely to obtain abusive loans. That is why homeowners who are forced to turn to the subprime market need strong, Federal protections.

I am looking forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation, the Save Our Homes Act, into law.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join many of my colleagues, patriots all, who are refusing to be rubber stamps for President Bush's failed policy in Iraq, who say ``no'' to an $87 billion blank check for an ongoing war and occupation with no end in sight and no plan to get there.

I support our troops, and I am proud of their professionalism, dedication, skill and sacrifice. But because Americans awaken nearly every day to hear the name of another dead soldier, because I have met with our brave patriot soldiers who are now recovering from devastating wounds at Walter Reed, and because more than a billion is being borrowed every week to finance this war of choice, I feel an obligation to demand accountability before another cent is authorized at this time.

I, for one, will not be an enabler to an administration that clearly cannot be trusted with our treasure, our lives, and those of the Iraqi people.

The most galling part of this debate is that the Bush administration and Republican leaders are blackmailing Members of Congress to vote for this blank check with the threat of being accused of not supporting our troops. Yet it is they who are guilty of tragically disregarding troop safety and comfort and betraying our veterans.

I, personally, have talked to mothers and relatives who are sending their soldiers huge packages every week that include items like sunscreen and insect repellant, shampoo, and sanitary napkins because the administration did not make plans to provide these items. Worse, over 40,000 of our soldiers were sent to war without modern body armor, without quality boots, without jammers that block the signals between bombs and detonators. Fully 46 percent of the spare parts needed by the Army are not available.

Now, some will say that is why we need more money, but General Myers said it is not lack of money that they do not have flak jackets. He says it is lack of capacity to manufacture these vests. I say it is lack of priorities. Newly released information today says that the money is not needed until May or June. I say vote no.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I rise today to offer a motion to instruct the House conferees on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003, to strike the health savings security accounts. The $174 billion saved should be used to provide employer subsidies in order to prevent over 4 million retirees from losing their existing drug benefits.

Many of us believe that the House Medicare bill does not go far enough in providing an affordable and adequate prescription drug benefit to the 13 million senior citizens and persons with disabilities who lack coverage. There are, however, 12 million retirees who today enjoy better coverage through employer-sponsored insurance than the benefit included in H.R. 1. I suspect that very few of us would be willing to say that those 12 million retirees should lose the better coverage they have today.

In fact, one of the selling points of this bill is supposed to be that enrollment in the Medicare benefit is purely voluntary, that retirees can keep their existing coverage if they want; but, unfortunately, this is not the case. We know that from the July 22 Congressional Budget Office analysis of H.R. 1 that one in three out of those 12 million retirees would be worse off if we pass this bill. I want to repeat that. According to the CBO, one out of three of those 12 million retirees would be worse off if we pass this Medicare bill.

It seems to me that our theme ought to be at least first do no harm; but 32 percent of retirees with employer-sponsored insurance would lose that coverage, according not just to the CBO but to studies like the one recently released by Ken Thorpe, a health policy expert now working at Emory University. He agrees with the CBO figures and has given us state-by-state figures about the impacts of H.R. 1.

According to Dr. Thorpe's analysis, 163,000 retirees in my State and in the State of the gentleman who takes the opposite view would lose their coverage and be forced to pay more for their medications if H.R. 1 passes. In every State across our great Nation, there are retirees and retiree families who would be worse off under this bill: 252,000 in Florida; 45,000 in Iowa; 218,000 in Michigan; 55,000 in Louisiana, and on and on the litany of retirees who would do worse under this Medicare bill.

The devastating impact this bill would have on these 12 million retirees and their families is probably unintended. Many of my colleagues may not have known about this problem when H.R. 1 passed this body by a single vote; but now we know about those

impacts, and it is up to us to fix this problem.

Again, it may have been unintentional, but we now know that this bill includes perverse incentives that actually encourage employers to drop coverage and that penalize employers that have done the right thing, those employers who are struggling to pay for drug benefits for retirees and who want to continue to meet their commitment.

We have heard about this problem not just from groups like the AARP and the AFL-CIO, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and Consumers Union, the National Breast Cancer Coalition and the American Foundation for the Blind. The analysis is coming from the Congressional Budget Office and the Heritage Foundation.

These concerns are, as my colleagues know, echoed by individual retirees across the country. Many of us have held town meetings on Medicare, have talked with senior groups and heard from individual retirees. Again and again, we hear concern that H.R. 1 will take away the benefits that they worked so very, very hard to earn.

As Francis Meehling, age 76, told a New York Times reporter, ``Congress says the new benefits are voluntary, but many people would lose the coverage they have.'' Once a retiree loses his or her coverage, the choice to enroll in an inadequate Medicare drug plan is no longer voluntary because there is no other option available. Let us be very clear. Unless we fix this problem, we will have taken away choice from 4 million retirees and their families.

My motion to instruct conferees is a way to find the resources necessary to provide the financial incentives to solve this problem. Because we are faced with a $400 billion cap on Medicare spending, which is imposed by the other side of the aisle, we have few choices. We can find the money by reducing the already meager Medicare benefit, we can cut Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors, or we could use the money going for health savings accounts, $174 billion, so that 4 million retirees do not lose their current benefits.

I have lots of concerns with the health savings accounts themselves because few of the uninsured have incomes high enough to take advantage of the health savings accounts, and I do not believe they will meet their purported goal of providing coverage to the uninsured. At a time when States are struggling financially, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says savings accounts will drain $20 billion to $30 billion from State treasuries.

It is really not my point today to argue that point. I urge even my colleagues who support savings accounts to support this motion. We have limited choices about where to get the money to prevent 4 million retirees from losing their coverage; and again, I am sure that none of my colleagues want a single one of their constituents to be worse off because of passage of this bill.

The example of the catastrophic health care bill of 1989 continues to loom over us, and I have issued a friendly warning about it in the past. That is the time when the angry senior citizens charged the then- chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means and surrounded his car and demanded that that bill be repealed. In recent weeks, I have heard from so-called experts that this bill will not result in a rerun of major grass roots opposition created by the catastrophic bill because they say this is a voluntary bill and no one will be worse off because this Medicare drug benefit is not mandatory but voluntary; but that is really not true because I caution my colleagues to listen again to the words of senior citizen Francis Meehling who says, ``Congress says the new benefits are voluntary but many people would lose the coverage they have.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just briefly respond that the purpose of this motion to instruct is to prevent 163,000 people from our State of Illinois from losing their coverage because their employers stop providing the benefit for prescription drugs for the retirees. So that is the point. It is to solve a problem that will cause millions of retirees and persons with disabilities to lose their benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a State where 385,000 retirees are projected to lose their prescription drug coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time is left on my side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), a State in which 143,000 retirees are projected to lose their prescription drug coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a State in which 280,000 retirees are projected to lose their employer-provided prescription drug coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), a State in which 243,000 retirees are projected to lose their employer provided prescription drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a State in which 74,000 retirees could lose their benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a State in which 134,000 retirees may lose their employer-provided prescription drug benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This motion is not about giving senior citizens more than they already have; this is about preventing something from being taken away from 4 million seniors. As my colleague stated, the entire Medicare bill is subject to a $400 billion spending limit because of the insistence of the Republican leadership. If we are going to provide the funding necessary so that 4 million retirees do not lose their coverage, we need to find the money somewhere. We can take it from the health savings accounts, or we can reduce the meager drug benefit even more, or we can cut provider payments.

My motion says that taking it from the health savings accounts is the best of all of the options that the other side has given us. We know what this motion means. It is a choice whether we vote to protect retiree health coverage, or we are going to vote for health savings accounts that will not meet their goal of covering the uninsured.

More important, the retirees who have employer-sponsored insurance and do not want to lose it know what this vote is about. They will be watching us. I urge support for the motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act.

The form of the motion is as follows:

Ms. Schakowsky of Illinois moves that the managers on the

part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes

of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1

be instructed to reject division B of the House bill.