Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as a founding and active member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, someone who identifies closely with the peace movement and a ``no'' vote on the war itself, I rise in support of this measure because for the first time we have a date certain for the war to end, a date when U.S. combat troops must be out of Iraq.

It is not the bill I would have written, but it moves us closer to the goal, as clearly stated by Speaker Pelosi, of ending the war in Iraq.

Like many progressives, I have consistently voted against funding for this war. We have withstood Republican critics who say we are hurting the troops, because we know the way to care for them is to get them out of the meat grinder that is Iraq.

This vote draws a clear line between those who want to stay indefinitely in an unwinnable war and those of us who, along with the majority of Americans, want to end it. After 4 horrifying years of war, finally the issue before us now is when, not if, we will leave Iraq.

We aren't going to end the war with any one vote, but this vote should be the beginning of the end of this tragic chapter in our history. It will have my support.

Madam Speaker, today, on International Women's Day and as we prepare to recognize National Women and Girls HIV/AIDS Awareness Day on March 10th, I am proud to introduce the Microbicide Development Act. This legislation will advance and accelerate efforts to develop an effective microbicide product to protect against HIV infection. While the primary users of microbicides will be women, an effective microbicide would also make significant contributions to the reduction of HIV infections among men and among infants.

The Microbicide Development Act will bolster and coordinate microbicide research and development programs at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Specifically, this legislation would establish for the first time a clearly-defined branch dedicated to microbicide research and development at the NIH and require the development of a strategic plan to expedite research.

In the 25 years of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, more than 25 million people have died from HIV/AIDS. Among persons aged 15 to 59, HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death worldwide. With nearly 40 million people living with HIV/AIDS worldwide and more than 4 million new HIV infections in 2006 alone, HIV/AIDS continues to be a major global health problem, threatening the economic, social, and political stability of many nations.

Unfortunately, there is today no cure for HIV or AIDS and no magic bullet for prevention. In the global fight against HIV/AIDS, scientists have stressed the need for a comprehensive approach that includes care and treatment for individuals already infected as well as a range of prevention strategies to stop further spread of the disease. Microbicides represent a critical strategy within this comprehensive approach to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, particularly for women. With women accounting for nearly half (48 percent) of all HIV/AIDS cases across the globe and nearly 60 percent of all HIV/AIDS cases (76 percent of HIV/AIDS cases among 15-24 year olds) in sub-Saharan Africa, HIV prevention technologies meeting the special needs of women are increasingly important. In some areas of sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, infection rates among young women are up to six times higher than among young men. The devastating impact of HIV/AIDS on women is certainly not limited to third world nations. HIV/AIDS is also a major problem for women in the United States, as AIDS is the leading cause of death for African American women between the ages of 25 and 34 in the United States.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease of the NIH, has emphasized the role of gender inequality in fueling the HIV/AIDS epidemic among women and the need to empower women with strategies over which they have control. In a March statement recognizing National Women and Girls HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, he stated:

``Globally, the vast majority of women with HIV/AIDS became

infected through heterosexual intercourse, frequently in

settings where saying no to sex or insisting on condom use is

not an option because of cultural factors, lack of financial

independence, and even the threat of violence. These issues

compel us to develop HIV prevention tools that women can use

in situations when negotiating with sexual partners is

difficult or impossible. One critical avenue of research is

the development of safe, effective and acceptable topical

microbicides--gels, creams and foams that could be used prior

to sexual intercourse to prevent infection with HIV and other

sexually transmitted pathogens. The development of these

woman-controlled agents is a top HIV/AIDS research priority

of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).''

Current prevention approaches are not practical for everyone, particularly women. The major route of transmission for HIV around the globe is heterosexual sex. Abstinence is often not an option for women. Around the globe, unmarried women are not always in the position to refuse sexual advances and may be the victims of violence. Married women are rarely in the position to be able to refuse sexual advances of their husbands, even if they know that their spouse is infected.

Many women who are infected with HIV or at risk for infection are monogamous and do not practice high risk behaviors. Frequently, they are married or in committed relationships in which they are placed at risk by the behavior of their male partner, which they have limited power to change.

Condoms represent the most effective prevention technology currently available. However, male condoms require male cooperation and even female condoms require the consent and cooperation of male partners, placing women's risk for HIV infection under the initiation and control of men. Women, particularly married women and those women in committed relationships, are often powerless to insist on or even request condom use by their male partner. Such requests can be interpreted as evidence of infidelity on the woman's part or accusations of infidelity on the man's part, either of which can result in serious penalties for women, including violence.

Topical microbicides represent a woman-initiated method of prevention that would not require cooperation from a male partner and may even permit conception. Microbicides are a class of products under development that could be applied topically to prevent the spread of HIV infection. Microbicides may eventually take the form of gels, creams, and films, and be used in cervical caps, pre-loaded diaphragms, or rings. These methods may be invisible to male partners, which would allow women to use these products with or without the knowledge of her partner. While the contraceptive effects of barrier methods such as condoms present an obstacle for women who want to or are expected to bear children, microbicides may be available in both contraceptive and non-contraceptive formulas. With the ability to discreetly protect themselves and the potential to continue to bear children unimpeded, microbicides address the reality of women's prevention needs.

Mathematical models predict that even a partially effective microbicide could prevent 2.5 million infections over 3 years and that gradual introduction of newer and better microbicides could ultimately save a generation of women. In addition, several prominent scientists anticipate that an effective microbicide will be available within the next 5 to 7 years. Significant advances have been made in the development of microbicides in recent years. By the end of 2006, there were 36 organizations involved in microbicide R&D, with 10 microbicide candidates currently in clinical development and over 30 in preclinical development. We cannot let this momentum slow; we

must continue to prioritize microbicide research and development since an effective microbicide is within our reach.

The Microbicide Development Act affirms our commitment to microbicide research and to the women whose lives will be saved by microbicides in the future. The global community supports microbicide research. Around the world, there is heightened attention to the urgency of meeting the unique prevention needs of women. For the past few years, G8 communiques and UN declarations have listed microbicides high among key global health priorities requiring focus and support. Numerous governments and donors have provided funding for microbicide development, including Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, European Commission, World Bank, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Within our own Nation, the Microbicide Development Act has garnered the support of over 120 community groups, including the AIDS Foundation of Chicago, the American Public Health Association, the Global Campaign for Microbicides, the Guttmacher Institute, the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, the National Minority AIDS Council, and the National Women's Health Network.

On this day, International Women's Day, we need to take a firm stand to validate and affirm the rights of women across the globe. This legislation recognizes the feminization of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the important role that gender inequity plays in the increasing rates of infection among women. It addresses those gender inequities by recognizing the reality of women's lives and providing women with tools to protect themselves within the context of this reality. Microbicides represent a woman-initiated and woman-controlled method of prevention that will allow women to protect themselves from HIV even in settings where negotiation with male sexual partners is difficult or impossible. This legislation demonstrates that we, as a Nation, value women and it will take the necessary steps to protect their lives and their futures.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to add my voice in honoring Hedy M. Ratner, who will be recognized in Chicago as a ``Women Who Dared'' on March 14, 2007 by the Jewish Women's Foundation, Women's Division of the Jewish United Fund, and the Jewish Women's Archive. I congratulate those organizations for choosing to celebrate Women's History Month by hearing the stories of three fabulous local Jewish women--Judith Panko Reis, the founding Director of the Women With Disabilities Center; Amy Rubin of Jewish Women International; and Hedy Ratner.

My dear friend Hedy Ratner is a force of nature. When she swirls into a room--beautiful, feminine, and powerful--everyone knows that a woman of substance has arrived. A feminist through and through, a fighter for social justice, Hedy has worked for the advancement of women all of her adult life.

In 1986, along with her friend Carol Dougal, Hedy founded the first and now the largest Women's Business Development Center in the United States. ``When we started the Center,'' said Hedy, ``it was an extension of our frustration that women still were not reaching parity in the marketplace.''

As of today, the Center has served tens of thousands of women; facilitated tens of millions of dollars in loans; impacted policies at the Federal, State and local levels; and helped certify countless companies as Women's Business Enterprises. Her straightforward philosophy is summed up when she says, ``It's good business to do business with women.''

Hedy Ratner was appointed by President Clinton to the National Women's Business Council. She helped found and then was appointed by two Illinois Governors to the Illinois Women's Business Ownership Council and the Governor's Commission of the Status of Women in Illinois. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley appointed Hedy as Co-Chair of the Women's Health Task Force. She is also a board member of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce and The Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau, and a founding member of the Coalition for Equal Opportunity and the Alliance of Minority and Female Contractors Association.

All of the prestigious appointments and major accomplishments only hint at the dynamic and inspiring person Hedy Ratner is. Her legions of friends, co-workers and admirers love her enthusiasm, her humor and her generous spirit. She is unstinting in her efforts to encourage and help those around her to be the best that they can be and to achieve their own aspirations.

Hedy Ratner has served as a role model for untold numbers of women who seek to make their mark in business, politics, and the professions. Perhaps it is, in part, because Hedy had her own role model--her mother. About her mother she said, ``She was an immigrant woman, came from poverty, didn't have an opportunity to be really well educated. [She] was a business owner, but she was informally educated. She was an entrepreneur and she was always committed to me, and women in general, being independent.'' Her mother said, ``That's the most important thing you can do: depend on yourself.''

Hedy's Jewish upbringing and pride have contributed mightily to her strength of character, her moral center and her determination to succeed. I had the real pleasure to attend her Bat Mitzvah not too many years ago. Hedy, your mother would be very proud of you for being singled out as outstanding Jewish woman by such prestigious Jewish women's organizations, but she wouldn't have been surprised that you are officially a ``Woman Who Dared.''

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me and for her great support for this measure, and I also thank Representative Ros-Lehtinen for her help for a long time making this resolution possible today.

I do rise in support of H. Res. 149, the International Women's Day resolution. I want to also thank Representative Judy Biggert, who is the lead Republican sponsor, for her consistent support and work to bring this resolution to the House floor. We have introduced this resolution honoring women three times, and it has been a pleasure working with her over the years.

Also, as the vice chair of the Women's Caucus, I am honored to have this resolution to be the first of our top five priority agenda items to make it to the House floor with such remarkable bipartisan support under the leadership of the chairwomen, Lois Capps and Cathy McMorris Rodgers. I appreciate their help.

Each year, countries around the world mark March 8 as International Women's Day as a day to recognize the contributions and the impact that women have made to our world's history, to recognize those women who have worked for gender equality and to acknowledge the work that is yet to be done.

Over the years, women have made significant strides. Women all over the world and throughout history have consistently contributed to their economies, participated in their governments and improved the quality of life of their families and their Nations.

In 2007, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi became the first woman in the history of the United States to be Speaker of the House. In 2006, I attended the inauguration of Michelle Bachelet, the first woman President of Chile, and visited in Liberia its President Ellen Johnson- Sirleaf, the first woman President in Africa's history. In the 110th Congress, we have an all-time high of 74 women in Congress, a 35 percent increase from just 8 years ago. However, women still make up only 16 percent of the House of Representatives.

In the United States, we have made significant strides in education. In fact, women now graduate from high school at higher rates and earn bachelor's or higher degrees at greater rates than men. While that is true, yet two-thirds of the 876 million illiterate individuals in the world are women. That is, two-thirds of them are women. Two-thirds of the 125 million school-aged children who are not attending school worldwide are girls, and girls are less likely to complete school than boys elsewhere around the world.

Women are making progress in business, and women make up 11 of the current CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. However, more progress still needs to be made. While great strides have been made in business, women still earn less, own less and have less access to education and employment than men. Globally, while women work two-thirds of the world's working hours and produce one-half of the world's food, we still earn only 1 percent of the world's income and own less than 1 percent of the world's property. Of the 300 million people living in poverty, 70 percent are girls and women.

Although Congress passed the PROTECT Act, a good bipartisan bill to prevent trafficking, there are still millions of women and girls who are trafficked, physically abused, sexually abused or face the threat of violence every day. In Iraq, Darfur and Afghanistan, women and girls continue to be the targets of extreme violence, brutality and intimidation where they face overwhelming, if not insurmountable, obstacles to legal recourse and justice. And in times of war and conflict, although most women and children are not engaged in that conflict, they continue to suffer the most.

So, Madam Speaker, it is important that Congress recognize the importance of March 8 and participate with the rest of the world in celebrating International Women's Day. Hopefully, the passage of this critical resolution will help raise awareness of the work we need to do and will help women continue to overcome the overwhelming obstacles that are still left to be overcome.

We must make a commitment to invest in women. Women contribute to the growth of economies and improve the quality of the lives of their families, the health of their communities and their Nations. We have won many battles for equality and justice for women worldwide, and we can do it.

The passage of this resolution puts us, the United States House of Representatives, firmly on the side of women who are seeking gender equality across the world, and I urge its passage

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me on this important issue.

On December 30, 1963, Congress requested that the President issue an annual proclamation designating February as American Heart Month. House Concurrent Resolution 52, supporting the goals and ideals of American Heart Month, reaffirms the Federal Government's commitment to fighting heart disease, recognizes Americans struggling with this illness, and encourages Americans to take preventive measures to protect themselves from heart disease.

I want to recognize the sponsor of this resolution, Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald, and thank her for her leadership on this and other critical health issues.

Over 79 million, or one in three, American adults have cardiovascular disease, including high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, heart failure, stroke and congenital cardiovascular defects.

The lifetime risk for cardiovascular disease for an individual aged 40 is two in three of men, and over one in two for women.

Cardiovascular disease was the underlying cause of death for well over a third of all the 2.4 million deaths in the United States in 2004. Cardiovascular disease accounts for more deaths than any other single cause of death in the United States. Nearly 2,400 Americans die of cardiovascular disease each day, an average of one death each 36 seconds.

The estimated direct and indirect costs of cardiovascular disease in 2007 are $431.8 billion. Heart disease is a significant factor in driving up medical costs in the United States. About two-thirds of unexpected cardiac deaths occur without prior recognition of cardiac disease.

This is an important point to underscore, and it highlights the need for American Heart Month. Public education can help raise awareness, encourage preventive measures, discourage unhealthy behaviors and persuade more Americans to get regular medical exams. By doing so, we will be able to reduce the incidences of heart disease.

We can lower those numbers that I have just mentioned, but we can also improve and extend the lives of real people, our family members, friends and neighbors. That is what American Heart Month is all about.

We know the risk factors that lead to heart disease: high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, tobacco use, physical inactivity, unhealthy diet, obesity and diabetes.

Cigarette smoking results in a two- to threefold increased risk of dying from coronary heart disease.

We also know the way to manage risk and prevent heart disease: regular exercise and maintaining a healthy weight; healthy eating habits; avoidance of tobacco, drugs and excessive alcohol; getting regular checkups to be screened for signs of heart disease risk.

American Heart Month is particularly important in getting the word out to those who are disproportionately affected by heart disease and who too often fail to receive the treatment they need. Women and minorities may have atypical symptoms when suffering a heart attack or angina, and if they are sent home undiagnosed, they are about twice as likely to die from these symptoms as those who are admitted.

Heart disease is the number one killer of women in this country, claiming over 349,000 American women each year. Raising awareness and improving treatment and screening can save many lives.

Forty-two percent of women who have heart attacks die within 1 year, compared with 24 percent of men. This may be because, on average, women are older than men when they have a heart attack. It also may be because heart disease is not typically diagnosed as or treated as aggressively as that in men.

Cardiovascular disease, including heart disease, hypertension, and stroke, is the number one killer of women in the United States. Experts estimate that one in two will die of heart disease or stroke, compared with one in 25 of women who will die of breast cancer.

Existing heart disease is undiagnosed in half of women who have a first heart attack.

Management of chest pains differ by sex and race. Men are more likely than women to receive definitive diagnoses of angina as opposed to vague chest pain. Women and blacks typically receive fewer cardiovascular medications than men and whites.

Lack of studies on women limits usefulness of research on coronary heart disease. Although CHD causes more than 250,000 deaths in women each year, much of the research on CHD in the last 20 years has either excluded women or included very few women. As a result, many of the tests and therapies used to treat women for CHD are based on studies conducted predominantly in men and may not be as effective in women.

Again, I want to thank Representative Millender-McDonald for her leadership, and I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 52.

Madam Speaker, March 5, 2007 will be both a happy and a sad day for me. On that Monday, Ra Joy, who has served as Suburban Director and Grants Coordinator in my district office for 6 of the 8 years I have served in Congress, will be leaving.

Ra will become Executive Director of the Illinois Arts Alliance, the largest and most prestigious arts advocacy organization in the state. He will follow the widely and highly respected Alene Valkanas who built the Arts Alliance over the past two decades, leading the effort that quadrupled the state's funding for the arts. Hers are very big shoes to fill, yet I have great confidence in Ra's ability to move the organization forward to meet the challenges of the new century.

Ra came to work for me as a very young man but with the promise of being a great leader. He had worked with youth at the Evanston YMCA, where he served as a role model and mentor for many African-American boys in our community. When he left the Y, he didn't leave the boys who continue to rely on his support and counsel.

Ra has a quiet self-assurance, a seriousness of purpose that inspires all those he supervises and works with. He has unfailing good judgment and an ability to understand and communicate complex issues. This makes him very effective in working with community leaders, individual constituents, the business community and not-for-profit organizations in the 9th District.

As Grants Coordinator, Ra has been a leading force in bringing tens of millions of dollars to the 9th District--federal dollars for infrastructure improvements, law enforcement, and social services, as well as private foundation support for dozens of organizations. He has shepherded these funding requests and applications through public and private bureaucracies and then monitored the management of the funds. He has held workshops to help non-profit organizations garner and manage the resources they need to flourish, including one aimed exclusively at art organizations.

Ra is an artist. His charcoal drawings demonstrate his technical skill, his passions and his politics. He comes from an artistic family--his father, Albert Joy, is a painter, and his sister Ebony Joy is a playwright. His beautiful home, shared with his wife Falona and sons, reflects his artistic sense.

Ra's connection to the arts community has had special significance for the 9th District, which, before my tenure, was represented for nearly a half century by Sidney Yates. Congressman Yates was revered as a patron of the arts and protector of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. My constituents have appreciated my continued focus on the arts, led by Ra Joy.

Ra has served as the Chairman of the annual Ethnic Arts Festival on Evanston's lakefront, a major event attracting visual and musical artists and craftspeople. He organized the Artistic Discovery competition each year, in which one high school student per Congressional District is selected to have his or her work displayed for a year in the Capitol, making it a significant juried art show. Dozens of students participate in an event at which all of their work is displayed, and all are honored.

I and the rest of my staff will miss his advocacy for the arts as part of our staff, but we rejoice that he is taking his passion to a higher level. We trust that he will now be in a position to offer his assistance as we continue to address the need to support the arts in our community.

I congratulate the Illinois Arts Alliance for its wise decision to choose Ra Joy as its new Director. I wish him great fulfillment and success.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my constituents in Illinois to say, as strongly as possible for myself and for them, that we reject President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Tragically, the President and his administration are dealing with an Iraq that exists only in their imagination. Bob Herbert said it well in Monday's New York Times: ``We need to stop pretending that there is something sane about continued U.S. involvement in this ruinous war. We keep sending troops into the combat zone, and they keep sinking ever deeper into the ancient Middle East sand. To keep sending young people off to die in a war that everybody knows is pointless is criminal.''

Each time that the Bush administration has proclaimed that we must stay the course because the war has just reached a turning point, that turn has led to a dead end.

May 2003, President Bush declared ``Mission Accomplished.'' By the end of 2003, 486 of our troops were dead and 2,408 were wounded. And yet we stayed the course in Iraq.

In June 2004, President Bush said, ``We're handing over authority to a sovereign Iraqi Government . . . a turning point will come in less than 2 weeks.''

By the end of 2004, 1,334 of our troops were killed and 10,408 were wounded. And yet we stayed the course in Iraq.

In June 2005, Vice President Cheney said, ``I think they are in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.'' And in December 2005, President Bush said `` . . . the year 2005 will be recorded as a turning point in the history of Iraq, the history of the Middle East, and the history of freedom.''

By the end of 2005, 2,180 of our troops were killed and 16,354 were wounded. And yet we stayed the course in Iraq.

In May 2006, President Bush called the formation of a new Iraqi Government ``a turning point.'' By the end of 2006, 3,001 of our troops were killed and 22,736 were wounded. And yet we stayed the course in Iraq.

And just last month, Vice President Cheney proclaimed, ``Well, I think if you look at what's transpired in Iraq . . . we have, in fact, made enormous progress.'' And President Bush told us that his new strategy to escalate the war in Iraq ``will change America's course in Iraq and help us succeed in the fight against terror.''

Since those remarks made just days ago, more than 120 troops are dead, and yet once again we are being asked to stay the course in Iraq.

My colleagues across the aisle want to characterize this troop increase, the fourth escalation, as a new direction. But the American people know better. They recognize ``stay the course'' when they see it, and they are saying no. And the administration continues the charade that if you don't support this war and this escalation, then you don't support the troops.

Shame on them. It is they who have failed to serve the troops who have served us so well. From day one our troops were sent into the war theater without the proper equipment to maximize their safety. Families have bake sales to buy their loved ones better vests and helmets. Just last month the Pentagon's Inspector General found that the Defense Department hasn't been able to properly equip the troops it already has with enough guns and ammunition to ``effectively complete their missions.'' That is a quote. Soldiers are short body armor, armored vehicles, and communication equipment. Imagine this war is costing $12 million every hour, 24/7 for 4 years, nearly half a trillion dollars, and our soldiers don't have enough body armor, ammunition, communications equipment?

If our troops aren't the priority, who is? Halliburton, Blackwater, other corporate chums of the President? Don't lecture us about caring for the troops.

The Executive Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America recently said of our returning soldiers and marines, ``And when they come home, there aren't nearly enough transitional care services, job placement, transitional housing. It is just not there.'' Twelve million dollars an hour to wage this war, and our veterans are returning home without the proper care they need?

Our support for the troops compels us to oppose this war and this escalation. Of the terrible options the President has left us after 4 years, the absolute worst is to continue to send our young men and women in uniform to die in the meat grinder that is Iraq and to put them in the cross-hairs of a civil war.

Speaker Pelosi has said that our goal is to end this war. We can begin right here, right now, by passing this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 521 which would designate the United States Postal Service building located at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, IL, as the Lane Evans Post Office Building. I thank Representative Hare for introducing this legislation.

Lane Evans has been a close and dear friend to me and my husband, Bob Creamer, since Lane's very first campaign in 1982. That friendship, through thick and thin, has been and will always be so precious to us. We are grateful to Lane for being such an important part of our lives. We love him very much.

I had the privilege of working for Lane Evans's first campaign. At the time Lane declared his candidacy, he was considered a sacrificial lamb running against a well-entrenched Republican incumbent. His winning seemed like a pipe dream. However, there was something special in this young, legal assistance attorney, and he quietly fought to win his seat in the House, giving the many labor union workers, consumer and civil rights activists, and ordinary residents of this western Illinois district the representation they deserved.

During that first campaign, Lane was modest, unassuming, friendly, and also inspiring. He showed a humble respect for each and every voter, addressing them in the soft-spoken, sincere manner that he never lost. The quiet strength that came from being a United States Marine during the Vietnam era always shone through.

From the first day and throughout his career in the House, Lane Evans remained true to his core progressive beliefs. The working and retired men and women of his district and the veterans throughout the Nation could always count on Lane Evans being there for them--no excuses, no exceptions.

As the Ranking Democrat of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Lane Evans was

recognized as the leading advocate of veterans in Congress, responsible for legislation to compensate veterans and their families for the effects of Agent Orange, help Persian Gulf and women veterans, and those now returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The veterans' service organizations have honored Lane with their highest awards.

Lane Evans has always been a leader in the fight for universal health care. Although Parkinson's disease has forced him to end his productive service in the House, he always acknowledges how fortunate he is to be able to afford the best care, while so many Americans are not. He has become an advocate for expanding funding for research into the cure for Parkinson's and many other diseases that might benefit from government- funded embryonic stem cell research.

When Lane Evans retired from the House of Representatives last year, Senator Durbin said the following: ``There are two kinds of courage in this world. There is physical courage, which is rare. Then there is even a rarer commodity, moral courage. Once in a great while you find someone who has both. Lane Evans is that person.'' I could not agree with Senator Durbin more.

I miss Lane Evans' presence in the Halls of Congress on a day-to-day basis. However, my sadness is easily deflected by Lane's legacy that will ever be reflected in the improved lives of the veterans of the United States and all the working families who will continue to benefit from his outstanding service.

I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 521.

Madam Speaker, when our constituents think of the House of Representatives, they think of the 435 elected Congressmen and women. Yet each of us is acutely aware that much of what we do or say simply wouldn't happen without our hardworking staff--the men and women who choose this way to serve their country, and, oh yes, toil to make us look good.

I rise today to pay tribute to Jonathan Samuels who has worked with me and for me from the earliest days of my first Congressional race, beginning in 1997 until today. It is with great pride, even motherly pride, that I see him move on to a key position in the office of Majority Whip Jim Clyburn.

In the early fall of 1997, I literally recruited Jon Samuels off the street in my home town of Evanston, Illinois. He and I were walking together in a student-led march against violence that started at the High School and ended in downtown Evanston, a few blocks from my campaign office. He told me that he had recently graduated from college and talked about the work he was doing with the youth in our community. I learned he was experienced outdoors man and led young people on challenging wilderness experiences.

By the time we reached our destination, I knew that I had to have Jon on my team. I clung to him during the speeches and then took him directly to my office to sign him up as an organizer in the Campaign School I was creating. The Campaign School was to be made up of seventeen young people from around the country who wanted to learn to become political professionals by working the Congressional campaign of a progressive Democratic woman. In exchange for providing excellent training, they would work for a stipend and organize a sufficient number of volunteers and identify enough voters that would elect me to Congress.

The plan worked, in large part, because Jon Samuels was a star. There wasn't anything he couldn't do in that first campaign, and there was no way I could go to Washington without him. For the next 8 years, Jon worked by my side as Legislative Assistant, Legislative Director, and then as Deputy Chief of Staff/Communications Director. Along with my amazing Chief of Staff, Cathy Hurwit, Jon has been the brains behind Team Schakowsky.

As good as he was when he started, Jon has only gotten better. I have watched him grow into one of the most capable, dedicated, strategic, focused, wise-beyond-his-years young men I have ever encountered. I have relied on him to handle the most complicated issues and situations, deal with the media, constituents and outside groups, with other members and their staffs.

But even more than for all of his extraordinary talents and skills, I appreciate and love Jon Samuels for his heart. Working in my office was never just a job for Jon. He believes in our shared progressive vision. He believed our team could make a difference. And I always knew he believed in me, and that has been and continues to be a source of inspiration.

Jon is now like family to me. I feel privileged to say that because Jon is fiercely loyal to his family. He even calls his Grandmother every single day!

And so, Madam Speaker, I rise to say on the record, Thank you, Jon Samuels. Thank you for your service to the residents of the 9th Congressional District of Illinois, for your continuing contributions to our country, for sticking with me for over 9 years, and for your love and friendship. You will always be part of Team Schakowsky.

Madam Speaker, the Administration's crusade to spread democracy

to the Middle East has been a major disappointment, but opportunity is knocking nearby in Central Asia and we should be taking advantage of it. But there isn't much time.

The opportunity for positive change was created by the death late last month of Turkmenistan's despotic dictator, President Saparmurat Niyazov, whose role model was Josef Stalin. The urgency for the United States to act is created by those who want to follow in his footsteps.

The Turkmen people deserve the right to elect their leaders in free and fair elections. That seems highly unlikely because of the junta that has tried to consolidate power in the aftermath of Niyazov's sudden demise. Consisting of the remaining holdouts from Niyazov's government and controlled by his former bodyguards, the junta leaders have pledged to continue the ``dear leader's'' style of ``democracy,'' ordering yet another statue of him to be built.

The constitution has been re-written to allow the junta's candidate to run in the presidential elections--scheduled for February 11-- virtually unchallenged. The regime's most competent opponents--the exiled community of business leaders and intellectuals--have effectively been prevented from contesting the elections.

For too long the United States has ignored Niyazov's abuses and we continue to fail to articulate our official position regarding relations with the ``interim government.'' I call on the Secretary of State to condemn the junta's unconstitutional actions and demand that it allow its opponents to participate in the February 11 election. Until that happens, the United States must refuse to recognize the government in Ashgabat as legitimate, and order federal agencies, including Treasury, State and Justice, to block all of its banking activities.

Nurmuhammet Hanamov, the founding chairman of the Republican Party of Turkmenistan who was his country's former ambassador to Turkey and Israel, has written an incisive article in the Washington Post calling on the West to take advantage of Niyazov's passing to help lead his country toward Democracy. A leader of the prodemocracy movement, Mr. Hanamov was forced into exile and his two sons were assassinated in 2005 in retaliation for his outspoken opposition to the regime. I ask that his article be included in the Congressional Record so that all may read the heartfelt plea of this courageous individual.

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 3, 2007]

A New Beginning for Turkmenistan

(By Nurmuhammet Hanamov)

Last week Turkmenistan buried its brutal dictator,

Saparmurad Niyazov. His ruthless reign spanned two decades,

during which time his policies became increasingly irrational

and unpredictable. The long list of Niyazov's crimes against

our people includes: banning all political parties except his

own and jailing his opponents; preventing thousands of

``disloyal'' citizens from traveling abroad; persecuting

religious and ethnic minorities; outlawing opera; and

shutting down regional hospitals, firing thousands of doctors

and nurses. Under Niyazov, Turkmenistan became a corridor for

heroin trafficking from Afghanistan to the West and gained

for itself one of the highest heroin addiction rates in the

world.

Above all, Niyazov was a selfish and kleptocratic despot,

stashing billions in proceeds from the sale of the country's

enormous natural gas resources in personal accounts in

Western banks. He used this money to fuel his outlandish

personality cult, building opulent palaces and golden statues

of himself even as his people were deprived of basic

necessities and suffer one of the world's lowest life

expectancy rates. The West's indifference was striking

compared with the relentless criticism by the United States

and the European Union against the more benign regime of

Alexander Lukashenko, president of gas-poor Belarus.

With Niyazov gone, the West has a historic second chance to

help our country make a peaceful transition to democracy.

Turkmenistan's interim rulers have unfortunately pledged to

continue Niyazov's policies (even ordering new statues of

him), and their efforts to grab power amount to a coup

d'etat. The former health minister--under the de facto

control of Niyazov's Presidential Guard--has arrested the

speaker of Parliament, who constitutionally is next in the

line of succession. He has sealed the country's borders and,

using other unconstitutional measures, has set the stage for

his own unchallenged victory in presidential elections

scheduled for Feb. 11.

The United States must send a clear message to Niyazov's

holdouts in the ``interim government'' in Ashgabat: that they

will not have its support unless they agree to hold free and

fair elections--ones that allow all citizens of Turkmenistan,

including exiled opposition leaders and political prisoners,

to take part.

We know that the United States has tried to help the people

of Turkmenistan in recent years, and thanks to American

educational exchange programs, there is a thriving community

of bright Turkmen students and intellectuals who are living

in Western countries and are ready to return and help rebuild

their country. This community is largely held together by the

efforts of Khudaiberdy Orazov, a former chairman of the

National Bank and an accomplished and energetic leader who

was forced into exile several years ago. He was unanimously

nominated to be a candidate in the February presidential

elections by a broad coalition of opposition groups inside

and outside of Turkmenistan. According to a recent poll,

Orazov's candidacy would have the support of a majority of

Turkmen voters. Until Orazov and other opposition candidates

are allowed to contest the February elections, the United

States and the European Union must refrain from recognizing

the junta in Ashgabat and freeze all personal accounts of

Niyazov and his cronies abroad. We hope that members of

Congress and other government officials will visit

Turkmenistan soon to personally deliver that message.

We must rebuild our country, and with the help of our

friends and neighbors we can do it in an open and transparent

way. Priorities for a democratically elected government

during the initial post-Niyazov reconstruction must be to

release all political prisoners, conduct open tenders and

allow Western companies to bid for a stake in developing

Turkmenistan's oil and gas fields; to consider new ways of

getting our gas and oil to Western markets; to restore

private property that Niyazov confiscated from Turkmen

citizens; and to create a reconstruction fund using Niyazov's

personal bank accounts and proceeds from the sale of oil and

gas to revive the health-care and education systems.

The United States is spending billions of dollars trying to

turn Afghanistan and Iraq--both deep in the throes of civil

war--into democratic nations while all but abandoning their

peaceful post-Soviet neighbors to the north. Turkmenistan is

ready for a new beginning, and the West must finally step up

to the plate. To do otherwise would waste a historic

opportunity and allow yet another case of popular discontent

with an illegitimate government to become an anti-Western

lost cause.

Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to see you in the chair.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, to require Medicare negotiation for lower drug prices, and I thank Chairman Dingell for his leadership.

In 2003 the pharmaceutical industry spent over $100 million to lobby Congress, hiring the equivalent of a lobbyist for every Member to protect their interests in the new drug benefit. And they got what they wanted.

As the New York Times reported this past November: ``For big drug companies, the new Medicare prescription benefit is proving to be a financial windfall, larger than even the most optimistic Wall Street analysts had predicted.''

One of the main reasons for the drug company windfall is the so- called ``noninterference'' clause, the provision written into the law at the behest of the drug companies prohibiting Medicare from using its bargaining power to negotiate for drug discounts.

Just think about it for a minute: Medicare is involved in making sure that prices are reasonable and affordable for every other benefit, from wheelchairs to hospital charges to hospice care. But it is prohibited from doing so for prescription drugs.

Other large purchasers, from the VA to State governments to large employers, use their bargaining clout to get affordable prices. But Medicare is prohibited from doing so on behalf of the 40 million seniors and persons with disabilities and the taxpayers who help pay for benefit.

This week, Families USA released a study showing that part D prices for the top 20 drugs used by seniors are on average 58 percent higher than prices at the VA. Other studies show that some part D drug prices are as much as 10 times the VA prices, and even higher than the prices available at Costco.com or Drugstore.com.

AARP, which operates a part D plan and supported the original bill, wrote to support this bill saying ``plans are not always able to exercise the kind of negotiating leverage that could result from secretarial negotiation.''

In the first 6 months of part D's implementation, drug company profits increased $8 billion. It is time to protect the interests of the American people, not the profits of the drug companies. It is time to pass H.R. 4.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman so much for her relentless and effective leadership, and express my gratitude to Congressman Castle.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3. I have been struck and moved by the number of colleagues who have come here and cited their own family members, including their children, as the driving force behind their support. But none of us should be surprised, since 100 million Americans are afflicted with diseases that potentially could be cured by embryonic stem cell research. And I have heard from so many of them from my own district. Why destroy their hope?

And I rise today in the name of our beloved friend and part of our Congressional family, Lane Evans. Lane is one of the million Americans who suffer from Parkinson's Disease, and that has cut his career short. And during his time in Congress, Lane was dedicated to advancing stem cell research because he understands what it is like to struggle with an incapacitating disease. And he understands the hope that embryonic stem cell research holds. Why would we want to destroy that hope?

And I want to thank all of my friends from the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation from my district and their children, who have served as advocates in such an effective way and met with me on a regular basis and educated me about this. And my dear friend, Bonnie Wilson, whose daughter, Jenna, has juvenile diabetes and has lived with that for her whole life. Why would we want to destroy their hope?

Since I have been in Congress, I have received letters from people like Liz O'Malley, and she describes the daily struggle of her son, Seamus. Seamus has muscular dystrophy. He is only 11 years old. Stem cell treatment may be his only hope. Why would we destroy that hope?

Illinois has already awarded $10 million in grant funding to research institutes and hospitals because Governor Blagojevich recognizes the advances. Now we can do it on a Federal level.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Seventy-two percent of Americans and a bi-partisan majority of Congress strongly support embryonic stem cell research. The research could prove to improve the lives and ease the suffering of the over 100 million Americans who have juvenile diabetes, ALS, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease, spinal cord injury, muscular dystrophy, and other diseases.

Parkinson's affects over 1 million people, including my close friend and our colleague, former-Rep. Lane Evans. During his time in Congress, Lane was dedicated to advancing stem cell research because he understands what it is like to struggle with an incapacitating disease, and he understands the hope that embryonic stem cell research held. Why would we want to destroy that hope?

I would like to thank the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and their young advocates for all the work they have done to raise awareness about the need to pursue embryonic stem cell research. The Juvenile Diabetes Foundation recognizes the need to allow embryonic stem cell research to transcend political lines and partisan fighting so that critical gains can be made in medicine in America and millions of human lives could be saved. I would also like to send a special thanks to my friend, Bonnie Wilson, whose daughter has juvenile diabetes.

Since I have been in Congress, I have received an overwhelming number of calls and letters from my constituents detailing their daily pain and suffering from debilitating diseases. In March 2006, I received a letter from my constituent Liz O'Malley. In her letter, she described the daily struggles of her son, Seamus. Seamus has muscular dystrophy. He is only 11-years old. Stem cell treatment may be his only hope. Why would we want to destroy that hope?

The opponents of this measure wrongly portray the decision on funding for additional stem cell research as a choice between one life or another. In fact, we are choosing between disposing of embryonic stem cells or using those cells to save countless lives and advance life- saving science in previously unrealized ways. Embryonic stem cell research offers the hope of a better life. It is incomprehensible that anyone would allow politics and personal preference to trump hard facts and science. They wrongly portray amniotic fluid stem cells as the only legitimate form of stem cell research. While this method is promising, it should not be the only type of stem cell research conducted. Every type of stem cell is different, every type has a unique ability, and none are a replacement for another. Any strides made in one form of stem cell research may be essential to gains in another area. We must not act to prevent embryonic stem cell research and dash the hopes of so many families who are battling critical illnesses and disorders.

America has always been on the cutting edge of innovation and now we stand on the brink of groundbreaking medical advancements that would dramatically alter the lives of people such as Seamus. We must not prohibit this promising research. States are already moving forward with this research by committing public funds. Illinois has already awarded $10 million in grant funding to research institutes and hospitals because Governor Blagojavich recognizes the advances embryonic stem cell research could make in science and medicine and the great potential it holds. I urge my colleagues vote to ``yes'' on H.R. 3 and to follow the lead of Illinois and many other states and allow for Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in the Chair, and I thank the gentleman for allowing me to do this.

I am a proud member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, and my office has been flooded with letters and calls from constituents who want the President to start bringing the troops home from Iraq. According to all the polls, an overwhelming number of Americans are opposed to any escalation.

Instead of a plan to begin redeployment, Americans heard a giant sucking sound from President Bush last night, pulling our troops further into the civil war that has already taken the lives of so many of our brave sons and daughters.

The President is dealing with an Iraq that exists only in his imagination. I challenge the President to answer the questions: Who are our allies? Who are our enemies? What does winning mean? How long will American troops be there? How many lives are you willing to sacrifice?

Escalation presumes a military solution is still possible. The catastrophe facing Iraq is political, and yet there is no evidence of a political process that has any hope of achieving any kind of reconciliation or success.

The President has virtually fired General John Abizaid, our top commander for Iraq in the region, who consulted with all of the divisional commanders and asked them in their professional opinion, if we were to bring in more troops would it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq. They all said no, but the President has not listened.

The British have announced that rather than escalating their participation in this war, they are going to bring 3,000 troops out of Iraq in May.

We are not receiving support from any allies. So it seems to me, as now a sponsor of the Markey-Kennedy bill, H.R. 353, that Congress has to step in, has to state its belief that this escalation is misguided. And according to the Markey-Kennedy bill, it would prevent the President from spending another taxpayer dollar to increase troop levels in Iraq without the consent of Congress. And after 4 years, it is time for President Bush to wake up and realize that his policy in Iraq has failed. Most of the country has already come to that conclusion.

Now, we must renew our military, work to restore our diplomatic credibility and, above all, begin redeploying our troops out of Iraq.

And I would like to yield the remaining time to my colleague from California, Lynn Woolsey.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act. Nearly 15 million Americans, almost two-thirds of them women, go to work every day caring for our children and frail old people, cleaning up our messes, serving us food in restaurants, and for their efforts receive $5.15 an hour, the Federal minimum wage. If they work 52 forty-hour weeks, their annual income adds up to $10,712-- $4,367 under the poverty level for a family of three.

Other Americans--the CEOs of the Nation's top companies--made on average $10,712 in the first two hours of the first workday of new year. According to a report by Americans United for Change, those CEOs make $5,279 an hour, $10,982,000 a year, or 1,025 times more than their minimum wage employees.

Those CEOs must really be special compared to the woman who changes their mothers' diapers or cleans their toilets. If she is a single mom with two children, she has to work 3 minimum wage jobs to provide for her family, according to Wider Opportunities for Women.

It didn't surprise me that a Newsweek poll found that 68 percent of Americans believed ``increasing the minimum wage'' should be one of the top priorities for the new Democratic Congress. And it's no wonder that women around the country and in my district are signing petitions, calling, sending e-mails calling on us to raise the minimum wage.

Leta of Chicago wrote that ``We need to increase the minimum wage,'' and Rebecca e-mailed to say that an increase ``is shamefully overdue.'' Jacqueline in Skokie asked me to ``Please restore a government which truly responds to the needs of the people.''

It's hard to imagine any member of Congress objecting. After all, it's been 10 years, the longest span ever, since the minimum wage was raised. In that time, we members of Congress have received cost-of- living increases that have raised our salaries over $30,000.

Today is the day we stand up for our lowest paid workers. Today is the day we give 15 million Americans a raise. And when we pass this modest increase, we should think of it as a down-payment on our commitment to assure that every hardworking American receives a living wage.

Madam Speaker, New Year's Eve marked another grave milestone in Iraq, as the United States lost its 3,000th soldier since the war began. Attacks on our troops are increasing as civil war spreads. America lost more troops in Iraq in December than in any other month during the previous two years.

As we honor the fallen, we must remember the daily life and death consequences of President Bush's policies. The time to begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq has long since passed. The longer we have stayed the course, the worse conditions in Iraq have become.

November's elections were a mandate for change in Iraq. As more and more members of the President's own party deem the Administration's policy a failure, an overwhelming majority of Americans are calling on President Bush to draw down our troops from Iraq. It has become resoundingly clear that a military solution is not possible. Our troops were not trained for or sent to Iraq to referee a civil war. An extended American military presence will just continue to fuel the insurgency.

The Republican co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, James Baker, warned that ``We no longer can afford to stay the course,'' and Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chair, agreed. ``The current approach is not working and the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing. Our ship of state has hit rough waters. It must now chart a new way forward.'' Instead of continuing to stubbornly defend his administration's failed war strategies, the President must now work with Congress and foreign leaders to chart a diplomatic strategy that reduces the violence in Iraq.

The President left the U.S. with no good options, but increasing the number of American servicemen and women in Iraq is an unacceptable course. The new Congress must use its authority to ensure that the calls of the American people do not fall on deaf ears.

It will take many years for the U.S. to move beyond the setbacks we have suffered in Iraq. Our military is overstretched. Our diplomatic authority has been severely diminished. We have shifted our focus away from Afghanistan, and a resurgent Taliban is increasing its attacks on American troops.

For those families whose sons and daughters died in the war, the wounds will never heal. Illinois is one of eight states that lost more than 100 troops in Iraq. From Rock Island to Champaign, from Skokie to Carbondale, more than 100 families have suffered the ultimate loss. It is time to change course.