Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 4, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to authorize Congress to prohibit the desecration of the flag. This amendment not only stands in stark contrast to what the flag represents, but this debate today is keeping the House from addressing more urgent matters facing our country.

The flag is a symbol of American greatness. It inspires awe and pride and is the official emblem of our nation. And, above all, it stands for freedom; the freedom we are guaranteed by being lucky enough to live in America. Ironically, this amendment would punish those who exercise that freedom. In our country, dissenting views are allowed and tolerated, even expressions as offensive as flag desecration. To take away this fundamental freedom of expression is to dishonor the flag and the liberty it represents.

Furthermore, this amendment is uncalled for. At this time when there are so many issues that this House should be addressing--when American soldiers continue to die every day in Iraq, when millions of low-income families are being left behind by the Republican Congress and the Bush Administration, when seniors across America can't afford their prescription drugs and millions more lack any health care coverage, and when millions of schoolchildren lack such basic resources as textbooks and safe classrooms--the House is instead debating a bill that is unnecessary, controversial, vague, and, if passed, would undermine our democracy.

Webster's dictionary defines ``desecrate'' as ``violating the sanctity of'' and ``treating disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously.'' This bill does not specifically define ``desecration.'' Therefore, if the amendment were to be passed, we would then be forced to discuss whether flag desecration included printing the flag on clothing or dropping small plastic flags on the ground after parades; we would have to discuss if the ``protected flags'' had size regulations or had to be made of specific material; we would have to decide if flags on personal property were ``protected''; and on and on. These debates are necessary. Instead of debating what freedoms we should be infringing upon and taking away, this House of Representatives should be doing everything it can to protect people's freedoms, especially our freedom of speech, and be working toward solutions to the problems that plague our constituents every day.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.J. Res. 4.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I received the following e-mail from one of my constituents. It says:

``Dear Janice Schakowsky, our government should stand for basic fairness and justice. That's why I do not understand why families earning between $10,000 and $26,000 per year would be excluded from receiving the $400 per child tax refund that wealthier families will receive this summer just so millionaires can get bigger tax cuts. As a constituent, I ask you to please amend President Bush's unfair tax cut plan to include these poor families and their 12 million kids. To leave the tax cut as it is brings too much shame upon this great Nation. Sincerely.''

My constituent is correct. This is a shameful moment in our great Nation, and we should not rest until we undo the tremendous wrong committed by the Republican leadership and the Bush administration. This is no time for business as usual. This is a time to reverse the damage done by the disgusting choices made by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. There are those who may tell us that the decision to leave 12 million children in low-income working families on the cutting room floor was just a mistake, but that would be a lie. As The Washington Post editorialized yesterday, ``Stiffing these children was not a last-minute oversight or the unfortunate result of an unreasonably tight $350 billion ceiling.'' In fact, this was a deliberate, mean-spirited action committed in the name of protecting special interests instead of our Nation's children. In fact, a House Republican Ways and Means Committee spokesperson confessed that, ``Well, adjustments had to be made.''

Let us be clear about what happened. Behind closed doors, Republican leaders got together with the administration and decided who was going to be thrown overboard and who would be brought to shore. There were no Democratic Members in that room. There were certainly no children or working families in the room. And the decision was made to throw children and working families, including military families, overboard and to save the dividend tax cuts for millionaires while restoring the ability of corporations to unpatriotically stash their profits in Bermuda. Compassion for millionaires and corporate traders, contempt for low-income children and their parents.

As Warren Buffett has said, ``If this is class warfare, then my class is winning.'' There are other winners besides Warren Buffett. Not surprisingly, the Bush Cabinet members who worked so hard to sell this tax cut, job-killing bill are also winners. According to a report just completed by the Committee on Government Reform minority staff, Vice President Dick Cheney, the President's key tax negotiator, will reap $116,002 a year from the dividend/capital gains provisions in this bill. John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury, will get over $332,000 a year. Donald Rumsfeld, who gave Vice President Cheney's former company, Halliburton, a multimillion-dollar sweetheart contract, wins big, too, as much as $604,000 a year. No wonder they all worked so hard to sell such a defective product.

We know who the winners are; and now we know at least some of the losers, 12 million children and working families. In my State of Illinois, nearly one in four children, 674,000 children in 378,000 families, were tossed aside so that Cabinet secretaries, billionaires, and corporations like Enron could be protected. We were not given time to read the Republican tax cut, job-killing bill before the vote; and I do not blame my colleagues for trying to push their bill through before we and the American public could learn what it included. I would be ashamed, too, if I decided to give Cabinet members, wealthy Members of Congress, and rich campaign contributors life jackets rather than women and children. And no wonder the Members on my side of the aisle were not given an opportunity to offer even one single amendment. What if we had learned the truth and tried to correct it?

Now we have learned the truth, and it is time to right an incredible wrong. Bob Herbert labeled this as a ``quintessential example of what the Bush administration and its legislative cronies are about. The fat cats will get their tax cuts. But in the new American plutocracy, there won't even be crumbs left over for the working folks at the bottom of the pyramid to scramble after.''

Now the actions of the Bush administration and Republican tax decision-makers are out in the open. And now it is our responsibility to act by passing the Rangel-DeLauro bill. Children and working families should be our first priority, not tossed out, given crumbs or thrown overboard. We must make the commitment to act this month.

Mr. Speaker, on Memorial Day, we will somberly celebrate the lives of a new generation of fallen heroes and honor American soldiers who paid the ultimate price in battle. We can only offer our gratitude as a small measure of comfort to the families of the young American men and women who will not be returning home from Afghanistan or Iraq.

Like those Americans before them, these brave men and women heeded our Nation's call to duty and followed their Commander-in-Chief's orders to go to battle, willingly and dutifully. They sacrificed their lives in wars and conflicts that their comrades are still fighting today.

As we pay tribute to the lost soldiers, we hope for the safe return of the men and women still on the battlefield, overseas and in hostile territory. To serve their country, they left behind families and loved ones, jobs and communities. But like millions of American soldiers through the years, they will be back on U.S. soil soon enough.

It is our duty to live up to the promises that we made to each and every one of those soldiers and to every veteran who served his or her nation. Unfortunately, the painful truth is veterans' critical needs are being ignored each day. It is shameful that 200,000 veterans must wait 6 months or more for their first appointment at a VA medical facility. It is disgraceful that the current Republican budget calls for cutting veterans' health care by $6.2 billion over the next ten years. It is unpatriotic to burden our retired soldiers and their families with extra costs for prescription drugs and doctor visits.

Is this what our soldiers have to look forward to? A litany of broken promises? Congress and the President must keep their promises to the nation's veterans and make adequate investments in veterans' health care. Because of President Bush's budget priorities and tax breaks for millionaires, veterans will continue to suffer the consequences. Democrats have offered a plan to roll back health care cost increases imposed by the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress, expand health care access for veterans and educational opportunities for reservists, and provide cash bonuses to soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, families of those killed on active duty would receive higher benefits under the Democratic proposal.

Our brave men and women have met all kinds of threats and have defeated unspeakable dangers, but they must not be forced to fight for what is rightfully theirs here at home. Our veterans may be gone from the military, but they must not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to stand before my colleagues and celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. Asian and Pacific Americans have been a part of this country for over 200 years, with one of the first Asian American communities, the Filipino community, being established in the Louisiana Bayou in 1763. Since that date, the Asian Pacific American community has come a long way.

According to Census projections, Asians and Pacific Islanders (APIs) will account for 6.5 percent of the nation's population by the year 2025, and by 2050 they will account for 9.3 percent. Consequently, by 2050 about one out of every 11 Americans will trace their heritage to API roots. As this community continues to grow, it is important for all of us to continue to learn from each other.

In the 9th Congressional District, I am very fortunate to represent a vibrant and productive Asian Pacific American community that totals over 70,000 people. The community is very diverse, including Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Vietnamese, Koreans, Filipinos, and Samoans. Ranging from doctors to teachers to small business owners, each member of the API community enhances our district and makes it a better place to live and work for all of my constituents. Whether I am marching in Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Sikh parades on Devon Street or celebrating the Lunar New Year on Argyle Street, I cannot help but feel a sense of pride when I see so many different cultures all tied to the single bond of being American.

Congress recognizes the importance of the Asian Pacific American community and displays this through the numerous Caucuses representing many nations, ranging from India to Cambodia. Congressional staffers have also done their part to educate themselves about the Asian Pacific American community through staff organizations such as CAPASA, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Staff Association, and SAACSA, the South Asian American Congressional Staff Association, of which I am proud to be a sponsor. As a Member of Congress, I will continue to utilize these resources to work with community leaders on key issues such as education and immigration, as well as encourage more Asian Americans to enter the public sector at the local, state and federal levels.

The rich cultural history and traditions of Asian pacific communities enrich all of our lives and contribute to the American culture. Now more than ever, we need to work side by side with community leaders to help educate those outside the community that Asian Pacific Americans are, first and foremost, Americans who share the same core values and beliefs as all communities in this country. The Asian Pacific American community has come so far in such a short period of time, and I am confident that it will only continue to grow and thrive while maintaining its many cultures and values.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this critical bill. This important legislation integrates prevention, care, and treatment. By passing the conference report on H.R. 1298 we can directly improve and extend the lives of millions worldwide. I think every member owes a special thanks to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee and to the Gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for their outstanding leadership on this landmark legislation.

I want to express my most sincere gratitude to the Chairman of the International Relations Committee, my colleague from Illinois (Chairman Hyde). He has demonstrated incredible leadership and a commitment to placing science above ideology by supporting a bill that will provide the resources necessary to promote effective strategies and technologies in the battle against HIV/AIDS. These technologies include the use of condoms, a measure that is effective in preventing transmission of the virus and should be used more frequently. This bill provides for education on the use of condoms, along with the teaching of abstinence and faithfulness to one's spouse. We must never allow our own personal ideologies to get in the way of our efforts to save lives.

Another meaningful aspect of this legislation is that it contributes to the Global Fund, indicating the interest of this Nation and this body in working with the international community to fight this global problem. I hope that such cooperation will be extended to other healthcare matters and critical issues currently facing this Nation.

The provision of aid to Haiti is of particular interest to me. I recently visited Haiti. It is the fourth poorest country in the world. The average Haitian lives on $1.39 dollars a day. I was shocked by the suffering I witnessed during my visit. Ninety perrcent of all HIV and AIDS infections in the Caribbean are in Haiti. Tragically, death from HIV/AIDS has left 163,000 children in Haiti orphaned. In Haiti, where only 1 in every 10,000 citizens has access to a physician, and where cases of TB are more than ten times as high as those in other Latin American countries, the population will benefit profoundly from this legislation.

AIDS has ravaged the globe, causing unprecedented death and suffering, and the virus is a global threat that must be addressed as such. We have had significant discussion about the need to undertake all possible actions at our disposal when addressing emerging threats. AIDS is indeed a well established threat to the health and security of the world. The fight against HIV/AIDS is a fight for humanity.

In addressing this worldwide pandemic, we must also work together to provide countries with life-saving and extending drugs. These drugs are the difference between a baby in Africa having a chance to know his or her mother or father or being orphaned before they can

speak or walk. We cannot allow pharmaceutical companies or government policies to construct barriers to treatment, such as complicated trade strategies and patent practices that make it difficult or impossible for nations to obtain the medicines they need to treat their populations at a price they can afford. We must make sure our dollars are stretched as far as they can go by lowering the price of drugs. We must also demand that the international community, including the corporate community, matches our efforts.

Finally, this measure is only an authorization bill. It is a critically important step. But it will be meaningless unless all members follow through on the commitment we are making today and adequately fund this measure through the appropriations process. I pledge my support to that effort.

Passage of H.R. 1298 is long overdue. I urge all members to support this bill.

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

I do not doubt for a minute that the Republicans would have been perfectly happy, probably preferred, to go home for a week letting unemployment benefits expire; give tax cuts to the rich today, that is the number one priority, $350 billion, most of which goes to the richest Americans, and zip to the unemployed. Actually, they did it at Christmastime, right before Christmas, let those benefits expire.

But after the Democrats pushed and pushed, and maybe there was some polling done, they decided to not only do something for the Bush class but to do something for the middle class and for the unemployed workers, $5 billion compared to $350 billion. Okay, we are grateful for that.

But over a $100,000 tax cut to Secretary of the Treasury Snow and still zero dollars for the more than one million workers who are still out of work, 53,000 in Illinois. Some over on the other side of the aisle have fretted about, oh, unemployment benefits, they just encourage people to stay home and not look for a job. How dare they? These people want a job, and this administration and its economic plan has been nothing but a job-killer, a job-killer. We have seen the loss of over 2.5 million jobs since this President has come in. The economy is going down.

These people want to work. People in my own family who have been laid off, they want nothing more than a good job. These people do not want unemployment insurance benefits. They want a job. But at the very least, we should be making sure that all those people who play by the rules, are looking for a job every day, get something.

On this floor of this House we should be able to debate alternatives. We are just cut off. Why? Because our alternative is better. It addresses the need for the American people, and that is exactly what the Republicans do not want to hear. They do not want to give anyone a chance to vote on our better plan. We should be voting no on the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1588. This bill allows the Department of Defense to severely alter the current civil service system, to trample over environmental laws, and to develop more nuclear weapons while providing more money to the DOD, despite the fact that it still cannot pass an audit. It strips away the fundamental rights from almost 700,000 civilian employees at the Department of Defense (DOD). These rights include collective bargaining, due process and appeal rights, and the congressionally passed annual pay raise. This bill also exempts the Department of Defense from public health and environmental laws, dramatically weakening protections for marine mammals and endangered species and undermining the role of states that administer pollution control laws. Finally, this bill promotes unnecessary irresponsible funding for the development of more nuclear weapons such as the infamous ``bunker buster'', and authorizes over $9 billion for ballistic missile defense programs--a program that will not work.

I also want to mention my support of the Sanchez amendment, which simply gives American women overseas the same legal abortion rights they would receive if they were home. The current ban on abortions at overseas U.S. military facilities denies women who have volunteered to serve this country a right they would ordinarily have if they were not overseas. This sends the wrong message to women who believe in the freedoms for which this country stands and want to serve this country to preserve those freedoms.

H.R. 1588 will authorize over $400 billion to the Department of Defense, $20.6 billion more than the President's budget request for FY2004. U.S. taxpayers will pay $15.7 billion for nuclear weapons in FY2004. For that same amount of money, we could have provided health care to 2,803,167 more people, including 132,473 in my home state of Illinois.

I support efforts to provide our military with the necessary funding needed to defend our country and to increase the salaries of our men and women in the Armed Forces but I am not willing to compromise the environment, workers' rights, and domestic priorities, such as education and health care, to achieve this goal. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2, the so-called Jobs Growth Tax Act. This legislation embraces President Bush's failed economic policies that have damaged the economy. This legislation is in fact a job killing package put forth by the Republican job killing machine that has already cost our country over 2 million jobs and $7 trillion.

When President Bush first came to office to promote his $1.2 trillion tax cut he promised that it would create jobs and help strengthen our economy. Now 2 years later, it is clear that the President has failed to deliver on his promises. The numbers prove that his economic policies have completely failed our country.

Since President Bush came to office we have lost 2.7 million private sector jobs. Illinois has lost over 109,000 jobs since Bush took office--93,000 from the Chicago area. Nationwide, the number of people who have been out of work for 6 months or more has tripled under the President's leadership.

Our State and local governments are paying the price for the President's failures. States budget shortfalls are expected to reach as high as $80 billion in 2004. In Illinois the figure is $5 billion, it may actually be higher. State and local governments have been forced to raise sales and property taxes to keep their schools open and to pay for the most basic of services. Working families and seniors are forced to pay more in taxes to pay for Republican tax cuts.

When President Bush took office we had a $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus. We now have a $2 trillion deficit over the same period of time. According to CBO, the President's tax cut not the war on terrorism accounts for the growth in deficit.

Corporate greed and conflicts of interest have hurt our economy. Approximately $4.6 trillion in stock market wealth has evaporated since President Bush took office. Many workers and retirees have lost all their savings. Meanwhile, politically connected CEO's have escaped with billions. Corporate fraud and greed have undermined confidence in our financial markets.

Given all of these facts, it should come as no surprise that consumer confidence is at its lowest level in a decade. It should also come as no surprise that the chairman of SEC, Secretary of the Treasury, and director of the OMB have all stepped down.

So how do the President and Republican leaders in Congress respond to this crisis? By proposing more of the same failed policies that put us in this predicament in the first place. It is often said that insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different result.

History has proven time and time again that the Republican tax plan will do nothing to help those who really need it and it will fail to give the economy the immediate boost it needs. The proposal to lower taxes on dividends will only generate nine cents of stimulus for every dollar spent. This is a sham growth package. It will cost us in dollars and in jobs.

Over 400 economists oppose cutting taxes on dividends, including many Nobel laureates. Republicans and Democrats alike have criticized the proposal to lower taxes on dividends. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Volker and former Treasury Secretaries Peter G. Peterson and Robert Rubin have called the

proposal to reduce taxes in dividends, ``ill-logical'' and ``not useful for short-term fiscal stimulus . . . nor would (the tax cuts) spur long-term economic growth.''

Meanwhile this legislation fails to embrace policies that will stimulate the economy. For example, extending unemployment produces at least $1.73 of spending for every dollar spent. But this plan provides no aid for the unemployed who have exhausted their benefits. In contrast, the Democratic alternative, which the Republican majority did not allow us to debate a few weeks ago an alternative that would include $27 billion for extending unemployment. Our plan would create 1 million jobs over 10 years without increasing debt.

This conference report does little to help working families. According to the Wall Street Journal, 53 percent of taxpayers would get less than $100. This legislation provides only $20 billion for the States over the next 2 years. When this bill was passed a few weeks ago, House Democrats wanted to provide $44 billion in State aid for health care, education, infrastructure improvements and homeland security. Once again, we were denied an opportunity to vote on our plan, and the American people will pay the price.

The Republican plan does nothing to close corporate loopholes. Corporate taxes are only 1.3 percent of GDP. This is the lowest they have been since the early 1980s. Last year, less than half of actual total corporate profits were subject to corporate income tax. CSX, under Treasury Secretary Snow's leadership, paid no Federal income taxes on its $934 million in profits; instead it got a tax rebate of $164 million. And Secretary Snow will benefit from this legislation to the tune of $100,000.

This conference report is yet another reckless plan to cut taxes for the rich and do nothing for the rest. It is class warfare with the Bush class waging war against the middle class.

This ill-conceived plan will place more of a burden on working families who are struggling to make ends meet to pay for housing, prescription drugs, and other necessities. I agree with my Republican colleague, Steve LaTourette, who recently said, ``Nobody in my district is screaming for tax cuts, they are screaming for a prescription drug benefit.'' In the 9th Congressional District my constituents will tell you they want jobs and prescription drug coverage any day over tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

I would like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that you cannot have it both ways. By spending money on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of earners and tax dodging corporations we will raise the debt and have less money to pay for prescription drugs, veterans' health, and keeping Social Security solvent.

I urge all my colleagues to vote against this conference report and to instead support the Democratic plan to create jobs and spur economic growth. Democrats want to help our economy by putting money in the hands of people that will spend it. I urge all my colleagues to oppose this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for giving me this opportunity because it is not every day that we get to come down to the floor of the House and defend the essentials of our democracy, to talk about defending the Constitution of the United States, the first amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of the press.

It is the very core values of this country that we are talking about today. This is definitely the most important telecommunications issue of our time and, more than that, whether or not ordinary people are going to have access to divergent views. This is a value that our country has embraced from its beginning that we should have the opportunity to hear different voices, to get different opinions and make up our own mind.

So I am here today to call on Federal Communications Commission, its Chairman Mr. Powell, and President Bush to listen to the American people,

to support media diversity and localism, and to not allow even more concentration of the media.

The Bush administration and the FCC have tuned out public voices and tuned in Rupert Murdoch. I suppose the gentleman will probably talk about him, and media barons, because people need to know who is controlling the messages that they hear when they want to get the news, when they want to know what is going on in the world and in our country.

People in my district and around the country are demanding that the FCC hear their voices. That is why just last week the Chicago City Council unanimously approved, by a vote of 50 to 0, a resolution that urges the FCC to strengthen existing media ownership rules, not to weaken them.

Today and yesterday I received 1,000 e-mails from my constituents. I am going to read one of them:

Dear Congresswoman Schakowsky, Congress shall pass no law

restricting the right to free speech. Letting one big

business control all available news organs for any locality

is a monopoly. Since when do corporations have a right to

control our free speech? Since when do their rights trump the

average citizen's? Is the Bush administration trying every

means conceivable to control our means of debate dissent?

I urge you and your colleagues in Congress to promote a

diverse balance and competitive media. Please stop the FCC

rule change on June 2nd.

We allow media companies to use the airwaves in exchange

for their assurance that they are serving the public

interest, and it is the FCC's job to make sure that is so.

Please hold the FCC to its mandate and oppose the rule

change.

This is from one woman in my district. But imagine now two full reams of paper from individuals in my district with the very same message. They are sounding the alarm.

A free and open media is essential to our democracy. It promotes civic discussion, encourages public participation and policy debates, ensures representation of ideological, cultural and geographic diversity. I cannot overstate the importance of the FCC's review of media ownership rules in deciding whether the principles of the first amendment will be embraced in everyday reality, or only in theory.

Media ownership concentration is already a major threat to our democracy. In the last 25 years, the number of TV station owners has declined from 540 to 460, and the number of TV newsrooms has dropped almost 15 percent. Three-quarters of cable channels are owned by only six corporate entities, four of which are major TV networks. Seventy percent of all markets have four or fewer sources of original TV news production. In 1965, there were 860 owners of daily newspapers. Today there are less than 300.

The Supreme Court has maintained that the first amendment is designed to achieve the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources. Media ownership diversity is critical to ensuring that we protect the first amendment. Over the years, the courts have supported the belief of Congress that independent ownership of media outlets results in more diverse media voices, greater competition, and more local content.

Over the last few years, we have seen considerable ownership consolidation in the media, while, at the same time, we have seen important public interest protections eliminated. For the first 50 years after the enactment of the 1934 Communications Act, people had a right to petition the FCC if they found coverage to be one-sided. We called that the Fairness Doctrine. It required broadcasters to cover issues of public importance and to do so fairly, until, in 1987, under immense pressure from the media, it was eliminated.

Eliminating the law of the Fairness Doctrine, a major blow to consumers, was supposed to be alleviated by a blossoming of independent local outlets that would expand diversity by increasing competition. In other words, consumers would no longer be able to use the Fairness Doctrine to ensure that their views were represented on a specific media outlet, but the thought was we would be able to present those views through competing media in the same market.

Unfortunately, the public is now faced with increased concentration, not increased competition, and no longer has the Fairness Doctrine to fall back on. The FCC should reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. At the very least they should not even allow more ownership concentration that makes the loss of the Fairness Doctrine more onerous. Greater media ownership concentration limits the public's access to diverse viewpoints.

Radio provides an example of what can happen when media ownership rules are abolished. In 1996, Congress eliminated the national ownership caps for radio. The result? Greater consolidation in the radio industry. In almost half of the largest markets, the three largest corporations control 80 percent of the radio audience. This has made it harder for diverse opinions to be heard.

Just last month, Clear Channel refused to air an advertisement in which I was inviting people to an event that was organized for people who opposed the war in Iraq. It was a gathering, and I wanted a commercial to air on the radio to see if people wanted to come. Clear Channel refused to put that advertisement on the air.

Absolutely. This was a paid-for ad.

That is exactly right. This was not a public service announcement. This was not asking a favor of the radio station. This was we want to buy an ad that invites people to a public gathering on the issue of most importance in the country at the time, and we were not able to buy that ad. They would not sell it to us, even as its affiliates were organizing pro-war rallies around the country on the air.

Yesterday, as has been pointed out, 11 Members of the United States House of Representatives, the Democratic whip, the Democratic leader of our caucus, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), who has been organizing around this issue of media concentration, an expert on the subject, held a press conference, and nobody came. There was not one TV camera, not one radio station. Two small print outlets came, we are grateful to them; but clearly, a decision was made not to cover this. And I want to challenge those media giants who did not come to explain how that blackout was not motivated by a conflict of interest.

If I could just add, here is the final request I have, and it is so simple, that the Federal Communications Commission, before it makes a decision on June 2 to allow even greater concentration, would travel around the country and hold more public forums, listen to the people, give an opportunity to the 1,000 people that wrote to me and the thousands and millions more who want to participate in this decisionmaking, let their voices be heard.

Finally, I want to say, let us consider, and I hope pass, House Resolution 218, offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), which calls on the FCC not to weaken current ownership rules that protect media diversity, and also calls on the FCC to better examine and inform the public about the consequences of further media concentration and allow the public to comment on any proposed changes. This is the least we can do to protect freedom of speech.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend and colleague, the Mayor of Skokie, Illinois, George Van Dusen on his 60th birthday. Mayor Van Dusen has faithfully served the people of the Village of Skokie since 1984, first in the role of Trustee, and since 1999 as Mayor. Over the last several years, I have had the distinct pleasure of working with him on behalf of the people of Skokie.

During his tenure as Mayor, Skokie has been recognized for excellence in education and public services. Skokie's Niles North High School was recently cited as one of the country's best high schools by both Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report magazine. In 2002, the Village was awarded the Governor's Hometown Award for municipal excellence and received an ``All American City'' finalist distinction from the National Civic League. Skokie is the first town in the United States to have nationally accredited Fire, Police and Public Works Departments.

I am proud of Mayor Van Dusen and the Village of Skokie for all of their impressive accomplishments. I know there will be more achievements and milestones for the Village of Skokie to celebrate in the time to come. I look forward to joining Mayor Van Dusen to mark those meaningful dates as well.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of children with disabilities and their families and in opposition to H.R. 1350. They say, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' The fundamentals of IDEA are widely appreciated by parents. In an e-mail I received, it says, ``Do not dilute IDEA legislation in any way. Our family has personally benefited from almost every part of IDEA rights,'' says the father of an autistic son.

We say, ``First, do no harm.'' Unfortunately, this legislation does do harm. It changes the features of the Individualized Education Program in a way that hurts children and makes it easier to kick children with disabilities out of their classrooms, even when they are doing their best to comply and to do everything right, and it may be the result of their disability.

Third, it diminishes the legal rights of parents to get the best education for children.

Finally, this legislation still is dismally underfunded. If we want to do something good for IDEA, we should provide full funding and vote against H.R. 1350.

Madam Speaker, I thank both the gentleman from Nevada and my colleague from California for offering this resolution in support of Operation Respect and the ``Don't Laugh at Me'' program. I feel so privileged to have not only heard the presentation, the incredible voice, and the power of Peter Yarrow, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) said, part of Peter, Paul and Mary group, sing this, but the way that it resonates in one's heart when you hear it, and I am sure in the minds of school children who welcome the words of tolerance and respect that are in this song written by Steve Seskin.

The program is to create the sound emotional development, the personal growth, the physical safety of our children, to promote antibullying and compassion and tolerance among children. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) began to read some of the lyrics that are in this song, and we can just picture that wonderful voice of Peter Yarrow, so let me once again add a few more words in this song.

``Don't laugh at me, don't call me names, don't get your pleasure from my pain. In God's eyes we're all the same. Some day we'll all have perfect wings. Don't laugh at me. I'm fat, I'm thin, I'm short, I'm tall, I'm deaf, I'm blind. Hey aren't we all. Don't laugh at me. Don't call me names. Don't get your pleasure from my pain. In God's eyes we're all the same. Some day we'll all have perfect wings. Don't laugh at me.''

In 2002, Operation Respect began shifting its strategy from making presentations to a lot of these educational organizations to fostering systemic and sustainable implementation of its own programs as well as long-term comprehensive character education and social and emotional learning by opening State affiliates around the country. Now there are affiliates in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, where I am from, and Ohio.

In Illinois, it is headed up by this wonderful woman, Flora LeZar, who was Executive Director of Operation Respect. She is helping, and I am working with them, to set up this program in Illinois identifying supporters in and around Chicago. And we are now in discussions with Columbia College's Office of Community Arts Partnerships, as well as an Evanston-based, that is my hometown, arts and education foundation, the Shanti Foundation, to partner in the implementation of ``Don't Laugh at Me'' in several Chicago public schools.

I am looking forward to one of the schools in my district, an elementary school called Boone School, we are hoping that that school will have the benefit of the don't laugh at me program.

Finally, let me just say this. Our world today is so marked by mistrust, where there is so much intolerance around the globe and here at home as well; a failure to really understand each other's cultures. In a country like the United States of America, which is

so wonderful because of its diversity, because we have so many people and children with different values that come to our public schools, that is our strength. But we need to help develop an appreciation of that in our children. It prepares them to be adults and leaders in a world that embraces diversity, that understands the differences among people and then can work to bring us all together for a world of peace and harmony.

So this is more than just a little program or one song, this is a philosophy of education and really a philosophy about the way that all of us should live our lives. So I congratulate Peter Yarrow and Operation Respect and the ``Don't Laugh at Me'' program. I am just happy to be able to support this resolution and to be part of advancing this effort.

Mr. Speaker, Twenty-four exceptional students from the 9th Congressional District are ready to compete against the smartest and the brightest from around the country in the national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution. The 24 students, all seniors from Maine South High School in Park Ridge, IL, have recently won the Illinois State competition and will represent our great State in the national finals.

What does it take to make it into the finals of this prestigious contest? What does it take to make it this far? The answer is clear: Dedication, hard work, and countless hours reading, researching, and studying the great document that is the foundation of our democracy: the Constitution of the United States of America--the symbol of personal freedom and protection.

Each year, the ``We the People'' foundation hosts district, State and national level Congressional-style hearings on the history and principles of Constitutional democracy in the United States. Participants are tested on their knowledge of the Constitution and its foundations and applications to our country.

The ``We the People'' contest is an invaluable learning experience for Maine South High School students and other students from around the country. The program helps promote democracy and encourages civic participation in the issues of critical importance to our freedoms by young men and women and I am hopeful they will carry those lessons with them into the future.

I would like to commend the students of Maine South High School's Constitution Team and their academic advisor Dan States for their hard work and great scholastic achievement and I wish them the best of luck in the national finals.

Mr. Speaker, 24 exceptional students from the 9th Congressional District are ready to compete against the smartest and the brightest from around the country in the National finals of the We the People...The Citizen and the Constitution. The 24 students, all seniors from Maine South High School in Park Ridge, IL, have recently won the Illinois State competition and will represent our great State in the national finals.

What does it take to make it into the finals of this prestigious contest? What does it take to make it this far? The answer is clear: Dedication, hard work, and countless hours reading, researching, and studying the great document that is the foundation of our democracy: the Constitution of the United States of America--the symbol of personal freedom and protection.

Each year, the ``We the People'' foundation hosts district, state and national level congressional-style hearings on the history and principles of Constitutional democracy in the United States. Participants are tested on their knowledge of the Constitution and its foundations and applications to our country.

The ``We the People'' contest is an invaluable learning experience for Maine South high school students and other students from around the country. The program helps promote democracy and encourages civic participation in the issues of critical importance to our freedoms by young men and women and I am hopeful they will carry those lessons with them into the future.

I would like to commend the students of Maine South High School's Constitution Team and their academic advisor Dan States for their hard work and great scholastic achievement, and I wish them the best of luck in the National Finals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for media diversity and localism. The Supreme Court has maintained that the First Amendment is designed to achieve ``the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.'' Media ownership diversity is critical to ensuring that we protect the First Amendment. Over the years, the courts have supported the belief of Congress that independent ownership of media outlets results in more diverse media voices, greater competition, and more local content.

A free and open media is central to our democracy. It promotes civic discussion, encourages public participation in policy debates, and ensures representation of ideological, cultural and geographic diversity. I cannot overstate the importance of the FCC's review of media ownership rules in deciding whether the principles of the First Amendment will be embraced in every day reality, or only in theory. Clearly, this is the most important telecommunications issue of our time.

The FCC has announced that it will release a proposal on June 2nd to possibly eliminate or weaken rules that would have major impact on television broadcast ownership concentrations. The rule that bars NBC, ABC, CBS and FOX from merging with each other and the rule that limits one company from owning broadcast stations that reach more than 35 percent of households nationwide could disappear.

The FCC is also examining rules that apply to local markets, including the rule that limits companies in the same market from owning two or more broadcast TV stations; the rule barring an entity from owning a local newspaper and television station in the same market; the rule capping the number of radio stations that an entity is allowed to own in a market at eight; and the rule restricting a single entity from owning more than one television and radio station in the same market, unless it is proven that there is sufficient diversity in the market.

I am adamantly opposed to the FCC relaxing existing rules to allow greater media concentration. Existing rules have been put in place to ensure that local communities have access to varying viewpoints on local issues. These rules must be maintained and should be strengthened, instead of weakened. Nothing at all should be done until the public and members of Congress have a chance to evaluate and comment on any specific proposals to change the current media ownership rules. In my view, that requires ample opportunity to consider and prepare comments, as well as a sufficient number of local hearings to allow all constituencies and all parts of the Nation to voice their views.

Over the last few years, we have seen considerable ownership consolidation in the

media; while at the same time we have seen important public interest protections eliminated. For the first 50 years after enactment of the 1934 Communications Act, people had a right to petition the FCC if they found coverage to be one-sided. The ``fairness doctrine'' required broadcasters to cover issues of public importance and to do so fairly until, in 1987, under immense pressure from the media, it was eliminated. The loss of the fairness doctrine--a major blow to consumers--was supposed to be alleviated by a blossoming of independent, local outlets that would expand diversity by increasing competition. In other words, consumers would no longer be able to use the fairness doctrine to ensure that their views were represented on a specific media outlet but would be able to present those views through competing media in the same market. Unfortunately, the public is now faced with increased concentration--not increased competition--and no longer has the fairness doctrine to fall back on.

In the last 25 years, the number of TV station owners has declined from 540 to 460 and the number of TV newsrooms has dropped by almost 15 percent. Three-quarters of cable channels are owned by only six corporate entities, four of which are major TV networks. Seventy percent of all markets have 4 or fewer sources of original TV news production. In 1975, there were 860 owners of daily newspapers. There are less than 300 today. My constituents and many constituents across the Nation are frustrated that they are unable to hear different viewpoints and, increasingly, that they are unable to get their own viewpoints to others because of barriers to the visual and print media. I believe that there is significant argument for the FCC to recommend reinstatement of the fairness doctrine. At the very least, they should not allow even more ownership concentration that makes the loss of the fairness doctrine even more onerous.

Greater media ownership concentration limits the public's access to diverse viewpoints. Radio provides an example of what can happen when media ownership rules are abolished. In 1996, Congress eliminated the national ownership caps for radio. The result has been greater consolidation in the radio industry. In 1995, Clear Channel owned 1.3 percent of radio stations; today it owns 20.2 percent. In almost half of the largest markets, the three largest corporations control 80 percent of the radio audience. This has made it harder for diverse opinions to be heard. Just last month, Clear Channel refused to air an advertisement in which Congressman Danny Davis and I expressed our opposition to waging war in Iraq. Clear Channel refused to put the advertisement on the air. Fortunately, several independent stations did.

Clear Channel, which owns 1200 stations across the country, has refused to air songs by the Dixie Chicks who have spoken against war in Iraq, it has put out a recommended ``do not play'' list that includes John Lennon's ``Imagine'' and 150 other songs, it has actively worked to support pro war rallies, and it has refused to play paid ads that do not reflect its own views. This is what happens when a few companies control the airwaves. The owners' bias is reflected in what they choose to put on the air and listeners are limited in what they are able to hear.

Part of the problem is that many entities that own media outlets are more focused on their bottom line than the public good and the public's right to hear and express diverse views. The founder and CEO and Clear Channel said in a recent Fortune Magazine article, ``We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our consumers products.'' I appreciate Mr. Lowry's candor and I do not dispute his right to pursue profits. However, his statement clearly illustrates the problem. Greater media ownership concentration will hurt our democracy.

We must maintain media diversity and localism. We cannot allow information to be monopolized, rationed or censored because a free and open media is absolutely critical to the functions of a democratic society. The stakes are high and the threat to free speech is all too real.

I urge all the FCC Commissioners to hold and attend more public forums across the country on any specific proposed changes to existing rules, as a major part of their decision-making process.