• The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and Department of Labor's Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) will collaborate to sponsor and organize a day long Federal Government-wide job fair for people with disabilities. The Fair will take place in early spring 2010. In addition to the Job Fair, OPM, ODEP, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Defense's office on Computer and Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) will provide workshops throughout the day on a variety of topics including the Schedule A hiring waiver and the right to the provision of reasonable accommodations including information on assistive and communications technology.



• OPM will develop training on Schedule A for federal Human Resources specialists, hiring managers and selective placement coordinators that will be easily accessible and includes on line training.



• EEOC and the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division will hold four Town Hall meetings throughout the nation to share information about the ADA Amendments Act proposed regulations and to gather comments on them. All Town Hall meetings will consist of two sessions - one for disability advocates and one for the employer community. These sessions will be completed by November 20th. The four locations are Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, and New Orleans.



• The Department of Justice will release a video that will identify and respond to a number of common myths held by employers about workers with disabilities.



• OPM will create and lead a task force comprised of representatives from key Federal Departments and Agencies that have developed and implemented model practices for recruiting, retaining and advancing employees with disabilities. The task force will report on the innovative practices agencies use to encourage the employment of individuals with disabilities. The report will identify and promote successful practices for conducting outreach, recruiting, hiring qualified candidates, successful accommodations, and providing opportunities for career advancement at all levels.

Governor Pat Quinn today named his Senior Advisor David Vaught as Director of the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget (GOMB). Vaught will succeed Ginger Ostro, who was named Senior Policy Advisor at the Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC). These appointments are effective immediately.

“The people of Illinois will be well-served by these two experienced and hard-working public servants,” said Governor Pat Quinn. “David Vaught brings a wealth of accomplishments to his new position as Budget Chief. Also, I look forward to benefiting from Ginger Ostro’s expertise at ISAC and want to express my thanks for her fine work at GOMB.”

Vaught, an attorney and financial analyst, is Senior Advisor to Governor Quinn and Chairman of Illinois’ Procurement Policy Board. As Senior Advisor he has focused on advancing Governor’s Quinn’s legislative, fiscal and economic development efforts. Previously, Vaught worked for then-Illinois Treasurer Pat Quinn from 1991 to 1995 and served as an ISAC commissioner from 2005 to 2008. He has also been elected to two school boards and is a trustee of the Great Lakes Protection Fund.

Prior to his current state service, Vaught was Managing Director for Mitchell Vaught & Taylor, Inc. Investment Advisors. He is a graduate of the Southern Illinois University School of Law and the United States Military Academy at West Point. He also served in the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division as a field artillery officer.

“I look forward serving as Governor Quinn’s Budget Director,” said Vaught. “I am eager to take on Illinois’ unprecedented budgetary challenge and am confident that we can emerge a stronger and more resilient state.”

Ostro, who has held numerous positions in state government for nearly 20 years, was with GOMB for six years and in 2007 was named the agency’s director. She received a Bachelor's degree from the University of Chicago and a Master's degree in Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

As Senior Policy Advisor at ISAC, Ostro will focus on the agency’s strategic direction while also developing innovative ways to make college more affordable for students and their families.

"It has been an extraordinary and exhilarating six years with the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget, and a distinct honor to help Governor Quinn through the most challenging budget in state history,” said Ostro. “I look forward to continuing my service to the people of Illinois as Senior Policy Advisor at the Illinois Student Assistance Commission.”

Toni Preckwinkle, candidate for President of the Cook County Board, presents a Tenth Dems U class entitled “The Future of the Cook County Board.”

Alderman Preckwinkle has represented Chicago’s 4th Ward since 1991, a district which includes the Kenwood and Oakland neighborhoods, as well as parts of Hyde Park, Washington Park, Grand Boulevard and the Douglas neighborhoods on Chicago’s south side.

The class will be held Wednesday, July 1, at 7 p.m. at the Wilmette Public Library, 1242 Wilmette Avenue, Wilmette.

“Reform” and “Honesty in Government” are two themes certain to resonate in the 2010 elections in Illinois, and especially in Cook County. Alderman Preckwinkle will talk about the future of Cook County government, share her thoughts on what the problems are and how they need to be addressed, and answer questions from those in attendance.

What: The Future of the Cook County Board; A TDU Class

Date: Wednesday July 1, 2009, 7:00 p.m.

Location: Wilmette Public Library, 1242 Wilmette Avenue, Wilmette

Instructor: Toni Preckwinkle, Chicago 4th Ward Alderman

“Tenth Dems U” – established by the Tenth Congressional District Democrats, or Tenth Dems, for short – is a series of classes designed to teach potential candidates, campaign volunteers and interested voters about the issues facing our community.

The courses consist of one session each, are free of charge and are offered at various locations around the 10th Congressional District. Registration is easy and can be done TenthDemsU.org Tenth Dems is a group of grassroots political volunteers who formed the organization in late 2003 to help elect Democrats to all levels of office throughout the 10th District.

Preregistration is strongly recommended to reserve a seat. Several of our recent events have filled up and we've had to turn people away. To register in advance, go online to TenthDemsU.org.

For more info, call 847-266-VOTE (8683) or email: info@TenthDems.org.

From the Desk of State Representative Kathy Ryg

I’m writing to hopefully help you make some sense of the spring legislative session. I join all of you in feeling angry and disappointed by the actions of the General Assembly. The status of our budget and capital program and reform legislation are still uncertain as I write this so please know that there is definitely more to come. I don’t believe I can offer any comfort that there will be a satisfactory outcome – given the state of the state, there is no way to make everyone happy.

I do believe Governor Quinn was absolutely correct in his assessment of the needs in his proposed budget address on March 18th. Tough choices are needed – the State has a $12 billion shortfall in revenues due to the failing national economy which led to the collapse of companies as big as General Motors. Illinois has a more complicated situation given the historic impeachment of the former Governor and the havoc he wreaked in Illinois government over the past six years.

As I have written you before, I believe step one to our state’s recovery is reform. Campaign finance reform has been my highest priority and I was very disappointed that in spite of hearings and recommendations from objective experts on campaign finance reform, only one bill was presented by the Speaker for a vote. This bill creates new opportunities for abuse and fails to provide limits that will stop the cash clout of leaders and special interests. I voted present (counts as a no vote) on the legislation as a protest reflecting my support for meaningful campaign finance reform but not the bill before us. I also spoke in opposition to the bill during the debate in an attempt to persuade my colleagues to join me in killing the legislation. Unfortunately, I was not successful but will continue to work on the issue. I have filed House Resolution 505 establishing a Task Force to further study the issue and craft legislation to include the best practices of other states and the recommendations of the Illinois Reform Commission.

I did support many of the other reform measures of the session. I have in the past and will continue to support a recall provision. I supported the changes to the Freedom of Information Act requiring increased and easier access to public information. I voted to change the way the state enters contracts with its vendors. We changed the hiring and compensation review process and as a result, my salary will be reduced and future raises require an affirmative vote. High ranking officials hired by Governors Ryan and Blagojevich will have to reapply for their jobs under Governor Quinn.

I was actively involved in the discussions of pension reform. I learned that based on actuarial data, our public employee pension systems are woefully underfunded. There are several factors causing this – retirees collect their constitutionally protected pensions for longer periods of time as people live longer; the investment market crashes have led to much lower returns on investments; and the state has failed to pay its share into the fund for decades.

In studying the pension reforms needed, the experts in the field have recommended changes in benefits for the long term financial sustainability of a defined benefit pension. Bills have been introduced to offer a defined contribution pension program, but the analysis indicates that costs of such a switch would not produce the long term cost savings. It is important to understand that any pension reforms would only apply to persons who have not yet been hired. Any person currently in a state pension program is constitutionally protected and changes would not affect their retirement benefits.

Many of you in these systems have asked me to answer yes or no to my position on pension reform. I do support the defined benefit pension system for public employees. Full funding of the state contribution to the pensions is critical; however, the full funding payment schedule set by the 1995 General Assembly was not based on actuarial data and was an arbitrary budget resolution needed at that time. Payments were set to ramp up over the years and ten years later we are faced with a $4 billion payment. I believe we must consider pension reform and possible rebalancing of the payment schedule without backtracking from the commitment made in 1995 to have pensions funded at the 90% level by 2045. I will not agree to pension holidays – the state must always pay its share of the pension costs for the pension obligations of that year (normal costs) and pay down pension debt.

One of the ongoing difficulties in the pension issue, has been the failure to include the stakeholders in the discussion. I am a sponsor of HJR65 which creates the Pension System Modernization Task Force to recommend pension benefit changes to modernize the state pension systems and I look forward to being guided by the stakeholders as we work toward a long term, sustainable solution.

Finally, I am frustrated and angry that the open and honest debate on how to balance our state budget was postponed until the last hours of session. We did pass a capital budget that I supported to build and repair our crumbling roads and bridges and fulfill outstanding obligations for school construction. I supported the revenues (but do not support video gaming) needed to pay for this program which will put people to work and rebuild our economy as well. However, I joined with 35 of my colleagues in protesting the passage of a capital bill before passing a balanced budget. Again, I spoke during debate about my concerns that revenues were being committed before a full discussion of needs.

The Speaker’s presentation of the capital bill before the budget bill was opposed by the Governor as well. Due to our failure to consider the fiscal needs and available revenues in a comprehensive way, our final operating budget requires 50% cuts in spending across all state operations. We did not resolve the need to reduce spending and raise revenue in a responsible way. We completely failed to protect the most vulnerable citizens of the state and our actions will lead to increased costs that could be prevented. Every one of us will know someone who is denied access to child care or health care or treatment for their mental illness or substance abuse. Seniors who could live independently in their homes and persons with developmental disabilities who need services to live in the community will be moved to nursing homes. Teachers and teacher aides will be laid off in a time when education of our children should be a high priority.

I do not relish the idea of another overtime session, but clearly we have no choice but to return to Springfield and continue to work on a budget that serves the people of Illinois, not the political agenda of a powerful few.

I am sorry for the length of this email but there is so much to cover. Please feel free to call my office for further clarification. We will do our best to respond to your questions but hope you will be patient as so many of you are sending emails which require my personal time and attention.

While I know there are strong feelings on each side of these many issues, I will continue to represent your interests to the best of my ability. When we disagree, let’s not be disagreeable, and I promise to always be truthful about my votes and the reasons behind them.

This summer will be my first as an intern for the Tenth Dems. As a high school student going into my junior year, my summer job prospects were not very exciting. Whether babysitting, camp counseling, or dog walking, working seemed just an activity that would get in the way of going to the beach. This opportunity, however, is very different from any of those activities.

Interning at Tenth Dems is fast-paced, exciting, and more educational
than any school course. What average high school student can say that she assisted a politician, organized volunteers, or worked on a website over the summer? This is a unique opportunity that allows every intern and volunteer to truly make a tangible difference in his or her local community.

In addition to all of the excitement and opportunities that interning offers, there are many more reasons why volunteering for Tenth Dems is so rewarding. I have noticed that many of my high school peers are shockingly unaware of what is going on in the world. As members of a generation that will inherit many complicated political issues, it is crucial that we learn to understand what is going on around us. This job gives me an inside look into how our government’s policies work, and into how they affect our daily lives. Becoming informed and educated is critical to our working together to make a difference. While helping candidates and citizens to get their voices heard is the main goal of this grassroots organization, most people don’t realize that those of us who volunteer to help get so much back—especially knowledge and experience.

The recent presidential election was a key influence on many of the people volunteering at political offices this summer. President Obama inspired young people everywhere with his call to make a difference. He motivated us to get involved with our communities because anyone can be influential, despite age, gender, or cultural background. His refreshing campaign and message of unity encouraged me to get involved and see what I could do to encourage local change.

So why help Tenth Dems? It is a fantastic group of people who advocate support of Democratic leaders all over the Illinois 10th Congressional District. Every volunteer is appreciated and does work that influences positive action around the 10th District. Interning is my way of helping out and having a summer experience that will teach me more than I could ever imagine.

Consumers will receive vouchers from the federal government to help purchase new, more fuel-efficient cars and older cars that damage the environment will be taken off the roads if legislation to establish the “Cash for Clunkers” program is approved by Congress, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said today. While discussing this effort to stimulate new car sales, Durbin promoted the tax credits made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for first-time home buyers.

“At a time when the future of the auto industry is uncertain and sales are lagging, a program that will bring people back into dealerships and stimulate auto sales is badly needed,” said Durbin. “The ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program will not only give consumers an incentive to buy new cars, but will also encourage them to choose more fuel-efficient vehicles. Both our economy and the environment will benefit in the long run from taking these older, inefficient cars off the road.”

The “Cash for Clunkers” measure, also known as the Drive America Forward Act, of which Durbin is a cosponsor, provides up to a $4,500 voucher to purchase or take a qualified lease on a new, more fuel-efficient car or truck for trading in an older vehicle to be scrapped. Consumers receive a $3,500 voucher if the new car is at least 4 miles per gallon (mpg) higher than the old car. The value of the voucher climbs to $4,500 if the new car is 10 mpg higher. Different fuel economy requirements are used for eligible new SUVs and trucks.

New passenger cars must have a fuel economy of at least 22 mpg and have a retail price less than $45,000. Trade-in vehicles must have a fuel economy less than 18 mpg,—except for work trucks—be in drivable condition and have been insured and registered to the same owner for a year.

A similar program was launched in Germany in February with good results. In March alone, Germany’s car sales jumped 40 percent relative to March 2008. From January to April of 2009, sales were up 18 percent from the same time period a year earlier.

Sales of domestically produced light cars and trucks have fallen 34 percent from this time in 2008. Imported cars and light trucks are actually faring worse, down 37 percent. Chrysler sales plummeted 55 percent from April 2008 to 2009. GM sales dropped 53 percent from last year and Ford is down 48 percent.

Durbin also discussed the tax credit for first time home buyers included in the Recovery Act. The tax credit is aimed at helping American families purchase their own homes and at stimulating home sales. Drawing on $2.6 billion in Recovery Act funding, this initiative means that single adults making up to $75,000 and married couples filing jointly making up to $150,000 are eligible for up to an $8,000 tax credit.

“One in every two homes sold in 2008 was to a first-time home buyer. Under this program, first-time home buyers could have 10 percent of the purchase price up to $8,000 refunded as a tax credit,” said Durbin.

Although the same tax credit for homes purchased in 2008 required repayment at no interest over 15 years, the tax credit for homes purchased in 2009 does not have to be paid back.

In order to prevent abuse, the program stipulates that homes cannot be purchased from relatives, they cannot be re-sold for three years, and the homes must be primary residences—no second or vacation homes.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan today thanked members of the General Assembly, following the passage of a three-pronged energy package designed to protect the interests of consumers by strengthening ethics rules at the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC), promoting energy efficiency, and helping low-income families with utility bills. Senate Bill 1918, negotiated by the Attorney General and sponsored by State Sen. Kimberly Lightford (D-Chicago) and State Rep. Robert Flider (D- Decatur) passed late Sunday.

Among its significant ethics reform provisions, the legislation prohibits private meetings between utilities and the ICC Commissioners who decide whether to raise utility rates. The bill also puts in place stronger rules to close the revolving door between the ICC and the utilities that it regulates.

“This legislation will bring important, pro-consumer changes to the way we approach energy issues in Illinois,” said Madigan. “The ICC sets the prices that Illinois consumers must pay for energy. By putting strong, new ethics provisions in place to govern the ICC’s conduct, we are working to level the playing field for consumers. We want to make sure that the ICC hears the voices of consumers when they are deciding how much utilities can charge.”

“These ICC reforms are long overdue,” said Rep. Flider. “The process for setting utility rates must be open and fair to consumers. In the past, there have not been adequate safeguards to ensure that is the case.”

Attorney General Madigan, along with Illinois consumer and environmental groups, low income advocates, business organizations, and utility companies, developed S.B. 1918 through negotiations that covered multiple proposals to address ICC ethics reform, energy efficiency and low-income energy assistance. The legislation combines separate bills originally proposed by Sen. Lightford and Rep. Flider, as well as provisions from bills proposed by Rep. Marlow Colvin (D-Chicago), Rep. Harry Osterman (D-Chicago), and Rep. Bill Black (R-Danville).

The organizations actively engaged in the process included Citizens Utility Board (CUB), American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Illinois Association of Community Action Agencies, Community Economic Development Association (CEDA), Low Income Utility Advocacy Project, South Austin Coalition Community Council, Environment Illinois, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Illinois Energy Association, Illinois Competitive Energy Association, Commonwealth Edison, Ameren Illinois Utilities, MidAmerican Energy, Nicor Gas, and Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas.

“There was strong bi-partisan support for this energy package, which includes a critical financial assistance program for low-income utility customers and groundbreaking energy efficiency measures,” said Madigan. “The legislation addresses issues of concern to senators and representatives from both sides of the aisle and from consumers in all parts of Illinois.”

The provision to help low-income households requires electric and natural gas utilities to offer a new program to help eligible customers better manage their utility bills. The Percentage of Income Payment Plan (PIPP) program will limit participants’ payments for electric and gas utility service to no more than six percent of their income. Participants also will have access to federally-funded weatherization services.

“The PIPP program will help maintain affordable year-round utility service, by offering low-cost, level payment plans to low income customers,” said Sen. Lightford. “This program will eliminate the cycle of disconnection and reconnection now faced by customers that rely on energy assistance payments.”

S.B. 1918 also promotes energy efficiency. The bill requires electric and gas utilities to offer a program that will make it easier for consumers to invest in measures to save energy, such as high-efficiency furnaces and central air conditioning. This program, which is known as on-bill financing, will allow customers to pay for energy efficiency measures by applying the savings on their utility bill to the cost of their initial investment.

The bill also requires natural gas utilities to offer energy efficiency programs similar to those mandated for electric utilities in 2007 legislation.

“Illinois consumers understand the value of making energy efficient investments in their homes, but the upfront costs of doing so often put these investments out of reach,” said Madigan, “This bill will make it easier for many families by allowing the investments to pay for themselves through the utility bill savings they create.

S.B. 1918, which now goes to the Governor for his signature, also is supported by Illinois Environmental Council, Illinois Sierra Club, Center for Neighborhood Technology, CNT Energy, Citizen Action/Illinois, East Central Illinois Community Action Agency, Will County Center for Community Concerns, Voices for Illinois Children, Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Affordable Budget Coalition, Central Illinois Organizing Project, Protestants for the Common Good, Labor Coalition for Public Utilities, United Electrical Workers (UE-11), Chicago Jobs with Justice, Exelon Energy, Illinois-American Water, and Mt. Carmel Public Utility Company.

This week, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich joined the fringe voices of his party in making the outrageous claim that President Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a racist.

With Gingrich soon to headline a lucrative fundraising dinner to benefit House Republicans like Representative Mark Kirk, this begs the question – will Representative Kirk repudiate Gingrich’s offensive remarks? Even Senator John Cornyn, a top Republican leader in the Senate, took the unusual step of criticizing Gingrich’s overheated rhetoric. Now will Representative Kirk follow suit?

“Representative Mark Kirk has a simple choice to make, will he strongly denounce Newt Gingrich’s shameful rhetoric or stay silent and just take his money,” asked Ryan Rudominer, National Press Secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Representative Kirk needs to decide whether he agrees with Gingrich’s offensive remarks or whether he will join fellow Republican John Cornyn in coming to the defense of Judge Sotomayor.”

Background

• This week, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote on Twitter, “Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman' new racism is no better than old racism….White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw." [ABC News; May 27, 2009]

• Yesterday, Republican Senator John Cornyn, Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee repudiated Gingrich’s remarks, telling NPR’s All Things Considered, “I think it's terrible. This is not the kind of tone that any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent." [Politico; May 28, 2009]

• On June 8th, Newt Gingrich will headline a fundraising dinner to benefit Congressional Republicans. [The Hill; May 21, 2009.]

Attorney General Lisa Madigan today heralded the passage of transparency reform legislation, calling the Illinois General Assembly’s vote a great victory for advocates of open and accountable government at all levels. The bill, Senate Bill 189, which now awaits the governor’s signature, will strengthen the state’s sunshine laws to make it significantly easier for the public to gain access to the workings of their government. Senator Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago) and Speaker Michael J. Madigan (D-Chicago) sponsored the bill.

Since January, Attorney General Madigan has worked with a coalition of open-government advocates and organizations to draft this legislation, including the Better Government Association, the Citizen Advocacy Center, Illinois Press Association, and Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. The Attorney General’s office also worked closely with the Illinois Reform Commission to strengthen and negotiate the bill.

“This bill will drag Illinois out of the Stone Age and into the modern era on transparency and openness,” Madigan said. “By creating a Public Access Counselor with binding opinion authority to fight for an open and accountable government, this bill will put Illinois at the forefront nationally and give our taxpayers a greater ability to know what their government is doing.”

Making the Sunshine Laws Work for the People of Illinois

Under the current law, when members of the public or the media are shut out of government meetings or denied access to public records, their only recourse to obtain a binding decision granting them access to their government is to file a lawsuit. As a result, governments at all levels often ignore complaints that they have violated the state’s sunshine laws – the Open Meetings Act and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

In December 2004, Attorney General Madigan created the position of Public Access Counselor (PAC) with the Attorney General’s Office. Since then, the Public Access Counselor has worked with members of the public, the media and government bodies to resolve disputes under the sunshine laws and ensure access to government information. The Public Access Counselor’s decisions, however, have not been binding on government bodies, resulting in many instances in which governments continue to deny people access to public records or government meetings.

Senate Bill 189’s groundbreaking provisions codify the Public Access Counselor position within the Attorney General’s Office and explicitly authorize the PAC to review and determine whether documents must be disclosed under FOIA or whether a government body has violated the Open Meetings Act. The bill gives the PAC authority to subpoena needed information, issue advisory opinions to guide government bodies, issue binding opinions to resolve disputes, and sue to enforce the binding opinions. If SB 189 is signed into law, Illinois will become the fifth state to give the Attorney General’s office binding authority to help the public obtain access to government meetings and public records.

When the courts must get involved in a FOIA dispute, the bill puts teeth into this important open government law. Under the current law, courts cannot impose a penalty when a government body willfully fails to comply with FOIA or otherwise acts in bad faith in refusing to disclose a public record. Senate Bill 189 would allow courts to impose civil penalties of $2,500 to $5,000 against public bodies that willfully violate the law. Additionally, where the current law permits courts to award attorneys’ fees and costs to a plaintiff who successfully sues to obtain a public record, the bill requires that courts award attorneys fees – making it much less burdensome for members of the public to sue to enforce their right to government information.

Strengthening the Freedom of Information Act

The bill also significantly strengthens and clarifies the Freedom of Information Act to make it easier for people to obtain public records. In particular, the bill establishes a “presumption of transparency” that defines all records as public and requires government bodies that want to withhold a document to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the law allows them to do that. Senate Bill 189 also shortens the initial time a government body has to respond to a FOIA request from seven to five business days and also shortens the time for any extension from seven to five business days.

The bill also makes other critical changes to greatly enhance the public’s access to documents:

• Narrows and Clarifies the Personal Privacy Exemption. Government bodies throughout Illinois often improperly justify withholding public records from the public by claiming that disclosure would violate the personal privacy of the individuals mentioned in the document. Senate Bill 189 significantly limits and defines the personal privacy exemption to make sure that the public can gain access to records.
  
  
• Requires Heightened Scrutiny When Public Bodies Seek to Use the Privacy or Preliminary Draft Exemptions. Senate Bill 189 contains key provisions to make sure that government bodies cannot improperly withhold public records from disclosure. Specifically, whenever a government body intends to deny access to a record by asserting that disclosure would invade privacy or that the document is simply a draft and exempt from disclosure, the bill requires that the government body notify the Public Access Counselor who can review the assertion of the exemption and deem if it is proper.
  
  
• Limits Copying Charges. Senate Bill 189 provides that government bodies must respond to a FOIA request for a document by providing the first 50 pages for black and white, letter or legal sized copies for free and limiting the charge for the remaining black and white, letter/legal sized pages to 15 cents per page.
  
  
• Requires Public Bodies to Produce Records in Electronic Format. To make it easier for the public to obtain records in an electronic format, the bill requires that if a requester asks for a document that is maintained in an electronic format, the government body must furnish it in the electronic format, if feasible.
  Further, the bill requires public bodies to designate FOIA officers who will be required to successfully complete attend annual FOIA training prepared by the PAC.
  

“Through my office’s extensive public access work, we have seen that far too often, people are routinely denied access to public documents,” Madigan noted. “For the last six years in Illinois government, we experienced a culture of secrecy imposed by the former governor. Among the complaints against the former governor and his administration was that they routinely and blatantly disregarded the sunshine laws and failed to provide the public and the media with access to information. Our experience over these last six years served to emphasize the importance of strong public access laws and the need for a Public Access Counselor with clear authority to step in and ensure compliance with the laws.”

Governor Pat Quinn is backing a proposed constitutional amendment empowering the people of Illinois to recall a governor. The Governor stressed his support in testimony before a House committee, which unanimously approved the measure and passed it to the full House for a vote.

“We need governors to be accountable to the public, not just on Election Day, but every day of their term,” said Governor Quinn. “Approving recall is the very best way to say that reform is alive and well in Illinois.”

The Illinois House State Government Administration Committee unanimously passed House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 31, sponsored by Representative Jack D. Franks, who also testified in favor of the recall bill.

Under the proposed constitutional amendment, an effort to recall a governor would require signatures equal to fifteen percent of the previous vote total for that office.

For example, based on turnout in the 2006 election, over 500,000 signatures would need to be collected within 150 days to put a gubernatorial recall on the ballot. Once on the ballot, a majority of voters would be required to vote in favor before the governor can be recalled.

At present, 18 states permit the recall of state officials. Governor Quinn has been a long time advocate for recall in Illinois.

Reforming state government is a top priority of the Quinn Administration. In the final days of the legislative session, Governor Quinn is working with the General Assembly on reform measures that will take politics out of state purchasing, overhaul the Freedom of Information Act, increase oversight and regulation of lobbyists, and cap campaign contributions.

In his first official act, Governor Quinn established the Illinois Reform Commission, an independent advisory board that recently provided the governor a report that serves as a blueprint for widespread state government ethics reforms.

“Making recall the Law of the Land is a crucial step in right direction but more must be accomplished,” said Governor Quinn. “I want to thank Speaker Mike Madigan, President John Cullerton, House Minority Leader Tom Cross and Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno for their help in getting reform measures passed in Illinois.”

President Barack Obama today marked the 100th day of the Recovery Act by releasing "100 Days, 100 Projects," a report from the Vice President that highlights the progress the country has made in the first 100 days of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the work that is already being done to build a new foundation for America’s economic recovery.

"One hundred days ago, in the midst of the worst economic crisis in half a century, we passed the most sweeping economic recovery act in history – a plan designed to save jobs, create new ones, and put money in people’s pockets," President Obama said. "Now, one hundred days later, we are meeting our economic challenges head-on and beginning to see early signs of progress across the country."

Among the projects in the report are two new Recovery Act investments totaling over $467 million to expand and accelerate the development and use of geothermal and solar energy throughout the country that the President will announce today during a visit to Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas, Nevada with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Nellis Air Force Base is home to the largest solar photovoltaic array in the United States, and 25 percent of the energy used by the 12,000 people that live and work on the base is generated by the 72,000 solar panel installation. The Recovery Act funds announced today represent a substantial down payment on bringing renewable energy technology like that used at Nellis to the mass market and is expected to create thousands of jobs, particularly in the western United States. To learn more about the new Recovery Act investments in geothermal and solar energy technology, click HERE.

Today’s announcement is just one of the many ways the Recovery Act is jump-starting the economy today and building a new foundation for sustained economic growth in the future. Across the country, the Recovery Act is already at work, providing essential financial relief for American families and businesses, creating and saving jobs, and spurring technology and infrastructure investments that will lay the groundwork for the new economy – and work is just getting started.

• In Southern California, construction is underway on the I-405 Sepulveda Pass Project on the San Diego Freeway, one of the most congested highways in the nation, because of a $189.9 million Recovery Act investment



• In Cumberland, Maine, Storey Brothers Trucking, a small family-owned business that was struggling to pay its 19 employees is now back to work and boosting the local economy because of a $2 million Recovery Act grant awarded to the Portland Water District for upgrading the town’s sewer system.



• In Pearl, Mississippi, a $1.3 million Recovery Act grant award is allowing the Family Health Care Clinic to open three new branches that will offer medical and dental services to low-income and uninsured residents and provide increased job oppor­tunities in the community by employing 70 staff over the next two years.



• At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a $17.5 million Recovery Act grant is funding the development of a solar fuels research center that will conduct research on how to use artificial photo­synthesis to produce low-cost and efficient solar fuels.

President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law on February 17, 2009. Just 100 days into the two-year economic recovery program, over $112 billion in Recovery Act funds has been obligated to stimulative programs and projects and over 150,000 jobs have been created or saved by the Recovery Act.

In addition to providing immediate relief measures for American families like the Making Work Pay tax credit and a 65 percent reduction in COBRA health insurance premiums, the Recovery Act also provides new and expanded energy-efficiency and first-time homebuyer tax credits that are driving fresh consumer demand and makes multi-billion dollar long-term investments in high-speed rail, broadband access, a nationwide smart energy grid and a modern health information technology system.

Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) made the following statement regarding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.

“President Obama has made an outstanding and historic choice in his selection of New York Judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the Supreme Court.

Her compelling life story and three decade career in nearly every aspect of the law provide Judge Sotomayor with unique qualifications to be the next Supreme Court justice. She has been called “one of the ablest federal judges currently sitting” and would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any jurist in 100 years.

Barack Obama knows better than most: when you are the first, you have to be the best. And Judge Sotomayor’s life – from public housing in the Bronx to the highest courts in our land – is a story of excellence.

I look forward to hearing Judge Sotomayor’s testimony in the Judiciary Committee. I hope and expect she will receive quick confirmation in the United States Senate.”

With major banking services crashing and the stock market bottoming out, the U.S. economy has suffered a crisis in recent weeks that has been called the country's worst since the crash of 1929. Democratic Congressional Candidate Dan Seals signed a pledge to protect Social Security for Illinois' seniors and called on Rep. Mark Kirk to join him. Highlighting the financial crisis, Seals said it demonstrated the recklessness of Mark Kirk's history of support for privatizing of Social Security.

"Mark Kirk supported the Bush administration's attempts to gamble with seniors' benefits on the open market, and now stands by as McCain makes plans to do the same," said Seals. "The recent market crisis shows just how dangerous Kirk and Bush's economic positions really are. Imagine how bad the damage could have been had their efforts to privatize Social Security succeeded."

Since 2001, Mark Kirk has voted to support the Bush administration's proposals to privatize Social Security. With his vote against the Filner, D-CA, amendment to HR 2590, Kirk urged Congress to consider proposals that would encourage seniors to privately reinvest the Social Security money they had earned, and slash benefits even for those who opted not to. Kirk has also failed to stand against John McCain's proposals, which critics say attempt to privatize the Veterans Administration on a similar model. Seals has been vocally opposed to privatization, and has outlined a platform to keep Social Security solvent that won him the support of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. [HR 2590, House Vote 273, 7/25/01; NCPSSM, 12/11/01; Los Angeles Times, 8/27/08]

"Kirk's loyal defense of the failed Bush-McCain economic policies shows just how out of touch he's become with the 10th District," Seals said. "In Congress, I will work to take our economic policies in a new direction, and that includes working to preserve retirement security."

Mark Kirk has a long history of support for Bush's irresponsible economic policies. Since taking office in 2000, he has stood loyally by the Bush administration as Illinois' unemployment rate has spiked to record highs and the national debt has ballooned to $9.6 trillion.

Dear Friends,

For those of us who care deeply about Israel and who understand the importance of strong Congressional support for this important ally, these are troubling times. Hamas has fired over 5,000 rockets into Israel since they took power in Gaza. Hezbollah is re-arming in Lebanon. And most troubling, Iran--whose president has called for Israel's destruction--is moving toward acquisition of nuclear weapons.

As a Member of Congress and a Jewish woman, I find it deeply troubling that supporters of Mark Kirk are attempting to turn what in fact is strong, bi-partisan support for Israel into an election issue. This is the last thing anyone who truly cares about Israel should want. I serve in Congress. I know how Congress operates. Don't let anyone fool you into believing that Israel should be an issue in the contest between Dan Seals and Mark Kirk.

Dan Seals has been unwavering in his support for Israel. During the Lebanon War of 2006, Seals argued that Israel was "doing the right thing by defending herself against terrorism. She has the inherent right and responsibility to protect her borders and to defend against attacks by terrorists that threaten the security of Israeli citizens." When 164 Republicans voted against foreign aid to Israel in 2007, Seals condemned GOP Leadership for urging the "no" vote. Dan Seals strongly supports Israel's right to self-defense in Gaza, and he has consistently backed tough action against Iran, urging the Administration to do more to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Mark Kirk is the classic example of a Congressman who strikes a moderate tone in his district, but votes with the Republican leadership 87% of the time. We need a Member of Congress from the 10th Congressional District in Illinois who shares ALL of our values, not just some of them. I can guarantee you that the outcome of this race will have no impact on Israel or Congressional support for Israel, but it will have a significant impact on the wide range of issues that are important to the Jewish community.

We are all concerned about Israel's safety and security. Please don't let anyone manipulate those legitimate concerns for partisan gain.

Sincerely,

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Florida)

Standing with veterans from across the 10th district, Democratic Congressional Candidate Dan Seals joined with Iraq War Veteran Tammy Duckworth to highlight Mark Kirk's failure to stand up for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, both on and off the battlefield.

Citing Kirk's twenty-four votes against veteran's benefits, including votes against budgets that provided record increases for veterans programs, critical funding for veterans' health care, even providing members of the National Guard and Reserves with a nominal bonus, as well as Kirk's refusal to support a responsible timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, Seals said that the 10th district deserves a change in Congress. [House Vote 144, HR 5122, 5/11/06; House Vote 107, S256, 4/14/05; House Vote 76, HR1268, 3/16/05; House Vote 47, HR 27, 3/2/05; House Vote 9, S 1920, 1/28/04; House Vote 554, HR 3289, 10/17/03; House Vote 186, HR 1591, 3/23/07; House Vote 173, HR5385, 5/19/06; House Vote 221, HR1815, 5/25/05; House Vote 616, HR 1588, 11/7/03; House Vote 141, H Con Res 312, 3/13/08; House Vote 377, SCR 21, 5/17/07; House Vote 212, H. Con. Res. 99, 3/29/07; House Vote 174, HR 5385, 5/19/06; House Vote 158, H Con. Res. 376, 5/18/06; House Vote 224, HR 2528, 5/26/05; House Vote 149, H. Con. Res. 95, 4/28/05; House Vote 478, HJ Res 107, 9/29/04; House Vote 450, H Res 338, 7/25/03; House Vote 456, HR 2861, 7/25/03; House Vote 82, H. Con. Res. 95, 3/21/03; House Vote 17, H J Res 2, 1/29/03; House Vote 296, HR 2620, 7/30/01; House Vote 281, HR 2620, 7/26/01]

"When our young men and women fight for our country overseas, they need to know that their representatives will fight for them when they return home," Seals said. "Over the past eight years, Mark Kirk has voted 24 times against veterans benefits, while refusing to support a responsible end to the war in Iraq. America's servicemen and women deserve representatives who will honor their bravery and sacrifice by keeping our promise to care for them and their families."

Federal veterans' programs have struggled to adapt to a new generation of combat veterans. Seals noted that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have produced record numbers of veterans with Traumatic Brain Injuries and PTSD, "signature" injuries that the VA has been ill-equipped to handle. Seals commended the Illinois Warrior Assistance Program for leading the nation in addressing the mental healthcare needs of our veterans, and criticized Kirk for voting against essential healthcare and transitional programs while consistently opposing efforts to bring accountability to the war.

"While our troops have done everything we've asked of them and more, they now find themselves in the middle of a civil war that has no military solution," Seals said. "After nearly 6 years in combat, thousands of live lost, and over half a trillion dollars spent, Mark Kirk has voted consistently to keep our troops in harm's way. In Congress, I will help bring the change we need in Iraq by honoring our troops with a responsible plan for withdrawal."

Seals commended Iraq veteran Tammy Duckworth on her service to her country and tireless commitment to improving veteran's services. Since losing both legs when her helicopter was hit by Iraqi insurgents in 2004, Duckworth has worked to make Illinois' state veterans' programs some of the finest in the country. Duckworth criticized Kirk for an abysmal voting record and opposition to support for military widows and orphans, and commended Seals for taking initiative on veteran's affairs.

"New leadership will have a profound impact on the men and women who serve in our military and their families," Duckworth said. "Dan has been up front about supporting our service members and ensuring our veterans get the care they need and deserve. He is ready to bring the change to Washington, and that's why I am here today to support him."

In the wee hours of November 19, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives brought up the $453-billion Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2863) to fund U.S. troops. Inserted in that bill was something that had nothing to do with funding our troops. Alaska Republican Senator Ted Stevens inserted a provision that would allow drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Every environmental group in America opposes ANWR drilling, and as a congressman who professes to be a friend of the environment Mark Kirk (R-Highland Park) says he also opposes it. When the final vote came up on H.R. 2863, Kirk took to the floor of the House to voice his opposition to inserting the ANWR provision in the defense spending bill and then joined 15 other Republicans to vote against the funding bill. Democrats who feared being attacked as voting �against our brave soldiers� supported the bill, even with ANWR drilling in it. It easily passed by a vote of 308-106.

�No vote on oil drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge,� is how Mark Kirk described his vote on his website. Mark Kirk, a self-described �Green Republican,� who knows his district is very pro-environment, wants you to believe that he is a friend of the environment.

But instead of blindly accepting political marketing images, let�s return to the facts:

Just a short time earlier that morning, H. Res. 639 was introduced. �Though the House voted 308-106 for the defense bill,� the Hartford (Conn.) Courant reported the next day, �drilling opponents pointed to an earlier, procedural vote�as reflective of the true sentiment toward the refuge.� They were referring to the vote on H. Res. 639.

The Republican leadership introduced H. Res. 639 because they knew that environmental-friendly congressmen would want to strip ANWR out of the defense spending bill. H. Res. 639 was a procedural rule that would keep the environmentalists from doing that.

Every Congressman knew what was at stake with their vote on H. Res. 639. And if they didn�t, Congressman Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) took to the House floor in those early morning hours to make it clear: �Every Member of the House should understand that they are about to cast the most important environmental vote of the decade. (This) vote�is a vote to drill in ANWR.�

So how did Mark Kirk vote? Instead of voting as his constituents wanted, he voted how the Republican leadership in the House wanted him to vote. He voted to block any attempt to strip ANWR from the defense spending bill. He voted against the environmental position.

Congressman Dave Reichert (R-Washington) was one of 21 Republicans who had the courage to stand up against the pro-drilling leadership of the Republican Party by opposing the procedural rule. He said in The Seattle Times that the votes by the 21 Republicans �infuriated some House chiefs.� Reichert said that Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska), an ardent supporter of drilling in ANWR, was even taking names �of GOP members who voted to remove ANWR from the defense bill.� Young didn�t have to write down Kirk�s name, because Kirk voted just as Young and the pro-drilling crowd wanted. Thanks in part to Kirk, the attempt to strip ANWR from the funding bill failed, 214-201.

�Each and every Member should be warned,� Markey said before the vote on H. Res. 639 was taken, �that this will be the number one environmental vote not just of this year but of the decade.�

On that vote, Mark Kirk voted against the environment and for drilling in ANWR. You won�t hear about that from him. Instead, his political marketing machine will kick into gear and say that he wants to protect ANWR, and it will point to his vote against the defense spending bill as proof. When the vote was 308-106 and the Republican leadership didn�t care how he voted, Mark Kirk acted like a brave guardian of the environment. But when it was a close 214-201 and the Republican leadership demanded his vote, Mark Kirk caved in. If Kirk is a friend of the environment, Alaskan caribou are in serious trouble.

It will probably never go down in the books as a major historical event, but local election history was made today when a second Democrat officially entered the race for Congress in the 10th Congressional District.

Zane Smith filed his petitions with the Illinois Board of Elections today, joining Dan Seals who filed on Monday in what is shaping up to be the first Democratic primary battle for the 10th District Congressional nomination in recent memory, if not ever.

�This highly unusual situation is the result of the tremendous growth of Democratic strength in our area, and dissatisfaction with the incumbent congressman,� said Lauren Beth Gash, the chair of the Tenth Congressional District Democrats (Tenth Dems). Gash ran unopposed for the Democratic Congressional nomination in 2000, while eleven Republicans battled for their party�s nomination.

�This has been a traditionally Republican area,� said John Hmurovic, a volunteer for Tenth Dems who has done research on the district�s voting trends, �but a Democratic primary for Congress is something new.� Hmurovic said that in 1998 the Democrats did not even field a candidate for Congress against long-time Republican Congressman John Porter.

Gash said she thinks the fact that two Democrats are running this year is yet another sign that the 10th District, like much of suburban Chicago, is becoming increasingly Democratic. Hmurovic agrees: �In 2004, the 10th District gave 53-percent of its vote to Democrat John Kerry in the Presidential race. All Democrats on the ballot received an average of 54-percent of the vote in 10th District precincts that year. This is becoming a Democratic area.�

Yet, Gash concedes that Smith or Seals, whoever wins the Democratic nomination, will have a tough challenge defeating incumbent Republican Congressman Mark Kirk, who she lost to in a very close race in 2000. �An incumbent always has an advantage,� Gash said, �but he also has a voting record in Congress. The challenge for Dan (Seals) and Zane (Smith) will be to show voters that Mark Kirk has strongly supported George Bush�s policies. That�s not what people who voted for John Kerry want in their congressman.�

Hmurovic agrees, and says the fact that two candidates are running for the Democratic nomination is also a sign that Kirk is seen as more vulnerable than many people would believe. Kirk won with 64-percent of the vote in 2004, and 69-percent in 2002.

�We (Tenth Dems) have done polling of the district,� Hmurovic said, �and it shows that once voters hear that Mark Kirk has been a 100-percent supporter of the war in Iraq, and that he has actually voted against the environment, and that he has voted for increasing the budget deficit, and that he has voted to give the government the right to interfere in your personal life as he did in the Terri Schiavo case, that people begin to see that the careful image he has crafted as a moderate Republican doesn�t always match the facts.�

Zane Smith is an attorney with a practice in Chicago. He is a Winnetka resident and an elected member of the Winnetka Park Board. Dan Seals is a marketing executive, and a former aide to U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut). He is a resident of Wilmette.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), a possible Democratic contender for President in 2008 will be the keynote speaker at the annual fundraiser of the Illinois Tenth Congressional District Democrats.

Support for Feingold has been building among Democrats because of some of his recent votes in the Senate. He was the sole member of the Senate to vote against the Bush Administration's so-called "Patriot Act." Feingold is also the first Senator to call for setting a firm withdrawal date from Iraq.

The date of the event in the 10th District will be Sunday, October 23. It will be held from 4:30-6:00PM. A location will be announced soon.

Space will be limiited for this event. For information on tickets, call 847-266-8683, or write to info@tenthdems.org

How long have you been looking for a job? Six months? A year? Several years?

Introducing one of the nation's most comprehensive political, government, media and management job banks for people of color. YDAMinorityJobs, a service of the Minority Caucus of the Young Democrats of America, is devoted to diversifying these industries and is primarily aimed towards young men and women of color.

Here you will find job openings in all aspects of public affairs, from media and public relations to political gigs, non-profits and 527s, campaign opportunities and government appointments.

The goal of YDAMinorityJobs is to create a link between employers who believe in diversity and those who are searching for a job where they will be able to perform to their full potential.

To receive daily job postings, CLICK THE LINK.

To send job postings and openings, e-mail us at JOBS@YDAMINORITYCAUCUS.ORG.

Join our group and you'll find everything from job-hunting tips and other job banks to information about upcoming minority job fairs and YDA MinorityJobs success stories.

So, JOIN US to unlock new possibilities!

Good luck on finding that job just for you!

Maybe you call Congressman Mark Kirk a moderate on domestic issues. I don�t agree. But for the sake of discussion, I�ll put aside my argument that he is, at best, an enabler�a person who �says� he supports moderate policies, but who enables anti-environment, anti-gun control, anti-separation of church and state, and anti-choice policies to flourish in Washington by his support for today�s right-wing Republican Party. But let�s ignore domestic issues for now, and just look at Kirk and foreign policy.

Moderate? Are you kidding me? Have you looked at his foreign policy record?

A website called PeaceMajority.org has. Based on their ratings, he�s no moderate. The word that best fits his foreign policy record is �hawk.� Based on their look at 25 foreign policy votes, Kirk receives a rating of 12-percent. That�s one point better than conservative congressman Henry Hyde (R-Wood Dale), and way behind the 89-percent rating of liberal congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston). In an Illinois congressional delegation that averages 40-percent, Kirk is near the bottom.

Of course, if your beliefs are similar to Kirk�s, maybe you see it as him being near the top of the list. Certainly, many who are strongly pro-Israel will agree with his positions on that issue. But do you also agree that we should continue to play hardball with Cuba? Do you see them as a threat to us in today�s world? Kirk does. He has voted against virtually every effort to adopt a 21st century American policy regarding Cuba. Allow Americans living here to go to Cuba to visit their families? Kirk voted against it. Allow more gift parcels and humanitarian aid for the Cuban people? Kirk voted against that, too.

How about giving the White House a free pass to attack Iran, Syria, North Korea, or any other nation? Many of us might support that if we are attacked or seriously threatened. But a blank check? Shouldn�t Congress have some oversight before the President can send our soldiers into another war? Kirk doesn�t think so. The Bush White House doesn�t want Congress, the United Nations, or the American people to have any power to stop it from doing what it wants to do. And by Kirk�s vote, he agrees with that.

Speaking of the United Nations, just two months ago Kirk voted to cripple the U.N. by cutting U.S. funds, a move advocated for years by right-wing extremists.

None of this is a surprise to you if you paid attention during the run up to the Iraq War. Kirk supported every move the White House made. When Congress considered an amendment urging Bush to work with the U.N. to find a peaceful solution to our differences with Iraq, Kirk voted against it.

After many thousands of lives, and billions of tax dollars, Kirk is still a 100-percent backer of the White House�s policies on Iraq. Last September, on the two year anniversary of 9/11, Congress passed a resolution praising the Iraq War and linking it to 9/11 and the war on terror. Kirk voted for it.

Still think he�s a moderate? The Mississippi delegation to Congress has an average 29-percent score from the PeaceMajority.org. South Carolina: 28-percent. The Texas delegation averages 27-percent. The Alabama delegation is at 15-percent. Mark Kirk: 12-percent. Delegations from some of the most conservative states are closer to moderate, than Kirk.

Mark Kirk, a moderate? Are you kidding me?

This article by James Rosen appeared in the August issue of the Tenth Dems newsletter.

Unhappy about Judge John Roberts being nominated to the Supreme Court? Nervous about the national debt, budget deficit, environmental policy and the alternative minimum tax? Worried about the future of privacy rights? Concerned about health care issues like prescription drug and insurance costs? A little scared about how safe your next trip is on a plane, bus or train? Downright disgusted with White House political operatives publicly exposing a CIA operative and damaging national security? Angry that the war in Iraq continues without the hint of a coherent strategy or exit strategy? You�re not alone. But don�t wait for the Republicans or the Tenth�s own Congressman Mark Kirk to make things better, they won�t. They are perfectly happy with the way things are going. As long as they keep winning elections things will not change. Want to change things? Defeating Kirk in 2006 is a good start.

Kirk is the careful and cautious politician. Careful and cautious not to say anything that might lose a constituent�s vote in the Tenth Congressional District. I�m sure he�s for �strengthening Social Security� but who isn�t? No doubt he�s against terrorism and wants to work to keep America safe but making thing up as you go along isn�t much of a plan. Bet he�s for �tax fairness,� but what does that mean? Giving tax breaks to Paris Hilton and Bill Gates? Do you really know where he stands on these issues? Has he communicated his position fully and clearly? I�ve seen photo-ops of him smiling with high school students and getting a Naval reserve promotion but why won�t he spend as much time telling his constituents where he stands on issues that matter to them? A leader would do that but Kirk is a follower.

Kirk will follow the Republican Party wherever it goes because that�s the path of least resistance to get re-elected. Forget what his district wants it�s all about what Mark Kirk wants and he wants to get re-elected for life without having to answer many questions. He gets very quiet after major issues hit the front pages of newspapers. His thoughts on Karl Rove and Lewis Libby outing a C.I.A. officer working on weapons of mass destruction non-proliferation issues? Not a word. Billions of dollars have gone unaccounted for in Iraq while our troops don�t have enough armor, bullets or radios and Kirk is silent. The tax burden is being dramatically shifted from corporations and the wealthy to everyone else and Kirk is nowhere to be found. Our broken health care system? Nothing from Kirk. This isn�t leadership. It�s �run for the hills� leadership with Kirk leading the way.

The Tenth District deserves better. In November 2006 we�ll get the chance to vote for a change from the silent treatment Mark Kirk has given his constituents. In the next year or so there will be many opportunities to help make that change happen. Volunteer for anything. Write a letter to the editor. Read up on the issues. Donate to a Democratic candidate you believe in. Help get out the vote or be an election judge on election day. Join the Tenth Dems organization and help be apart of the change that is long overdue in our district. The bottom line is Mark Kirk and the Republicans aren�t going to change things � are you?

The Senate�s Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) today issued the following statement about the recess appointment of John Bolton to be permanent U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations:

�Today�s recess appointment of John Bolton as United States Ambassador to the United Nations is a lost opportunity for this administration to regain American leadership at the U.N.�

�The President has taken the decision as to who will be U.N. Ambassador out of the Senate�s hands. Let us hope that Mr. Bolton rises to the occasion, works in a sincere way to restore our credibility in the world and fully engages in the hard work of representing our nation�s interests in the United Nations.�

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Lake County State�s Attorney Michael Waller have obtained indictments alleging that the former Deputy Director of the Lake County Department of Corrections allegedly conspired with his boss to alter documents that allowed him to claim a greater pension benefit. The scheme potentially could cost county taxpayers more than $344,000.

The indictments charge Charles M. DeFilippo, former Deputy Director and Lawrence Lesza, former Director of the Lake County Department of Corrections, with one count each of conspiracy to commit theft in excess of $100,000, a Class 4 felony punishable by a sentence of one to three years in prison, and one count each of attempt theft exceeding $100,000, a Class 2 felony punishable by three to seven years in prison. In addition, DeFlillippo was indicted on five counts of forgery, a Class 3 felony that carries a possible sentence of two to five years in prison. Lesza was indicted on a single felony count of forgery.

According to the indictments returned today by a Lake County grand jury, beginning in March 1999, DeFilippo, with the assistance of Lesza, allegedly submitted forged and false documents to the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) to influence the retirementsystem�s decision to grant DeFilippo additional work credit as a sworn deputy that would allow DeFilippo to receive a larger pension benefit under the Fund�s Sheriff�s Law Enforcement Pension.

According to Madigan and Waller, in February 2000, IMRF granted DeFilippo the additional work credit based on documents submitted by DeFilippo. By its ruling, IMRF potentially raised DeFilippo�s pension benefit by over $19,000 per year and a cost differential to Lake County taxpayers of more than $344,000 if DeFilippo is allowed to retire, as planned, in August 2008.

�We contend that this was the result of a calculated scheme by these two men to bilk taxpayers of Lake County out of hundreds of thousands of dollars solely for the fraudulent benefit of former Deputy Director DeFilippo,� Madigan said.

�We appreciate the efforts of the Illinois Attorney General�s Office in bringing today�s charges,� Waller said. �It should be understood that regardless of a person�s employment status, he cannot use that position to wrongfully benefit himself or to defraud the taxpayers.�

In 2000, Lesza retired as Director of the Lake County Department of Corrections and DeFilippo was promoted to the position. In 2003, DeFilippo resigned the position.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Neal Goodfriend of Madigan�s Special Prosecutions Bureau and Assistant Bureau Chief Maria Kuriakos of the Criminal Prosecutions/Trials Assistance Bureau are assisting Lake County State�s Attorney Waller�s office in prosecuting the case.

The public is reminded that these charges are merely accusations and the defendants are presumed innocent until found guilty.

Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White's initiative to limit drivers to two court supervisions for moving violations in a 12-month period was signed into law today by Governor Rod Blagojevich. Any other moving violations of which a driver is found guilty during that period would result in convictions reported to the individual's permanent driving record.

"Unfortunately, there are bad drivers who abuse the system," White said. "These dangerous drivers shouldn't be given the opportunity to obtain court supervision numerous times per year to avoid having their driving privileges suspended. I want to commend Governor Blagojevich and the members of the General Assembly for helping to make our roads safer."

White said the change in law is necessary because a small percentage of Illinois drivers have received too many dispositions of court supervision in recent years. Some drivers have been granted court supervision more than a dozen times in a single year, keeping the offenses off their permanent records and stopping White from suspending their driving privileges for those violations.

"This law is intended to make a driver's permanent record a more accurate reflection of driving habits," White said. "It will allow my office to suspend the driving privileges of more drivers who habitually break our traffic laws."

In 1999, White pushed for a law that required every county to report dispositions of court supervision to the Secretary of State. He created a database the courts use to check if a driver has received court supervision for any moving violations. Prior to the creation of that database, there wasn't any mechanism for a judge in one county to know if the driver had been given court supervision in another county.

While just one percent of all licensed drivers have been granted multiple court supervisions in each of the past four years, a few thousand of those drivers have been granted court supervision more than three times in each 12-month period. Last year, 3,785 drivers received court supervision for more than three offenses, 128 drivers received court supervision more than six times and one driver received court supervision 14 times. Over the past three years, 28 drivers have received court supervision 10 or more times in a 12-month period.

The new law takes effect January 1, 2006. House Bill 1483 was sponsored by State Rep. Lisa Dugan (D- Kankakee) and State Senator Debbie Halvorson (D-Crete).

Celebrating a major victory for both business and labor, Governor Rod R. Blagojevich signed legislation today that dramatically changes the workers� compensation system to reduce costs for businesses, increase benefits for workers, and fight fraud. After the Governor made workers� compensation reform a top priority in his 2005 State of the State address, he convened negotiations over several months with business and labor leaders and members of the General Assembly that resulted in the first major overhaul of Illinois� workers compensation system in nearly 20 years.

�We want to attract more jobs to Illinois, and helping businesses save money on the cost of workers compensation insurance is a good way to do it. Businesses currently spend too much money on workers comp and workers don�t receive the benefits they deserve. This new law addresses both problems,� Governor Blagojevich said.

According to the National Insurance Crime Bureau, workers� compensation fraud costs employers $6.5 billion a year nationwide, and Illinois is the 19th most expensive state in the nation when it comes to workers� compensation premiums. Illinois companies pay 40 percent more for workers� compensation than neighboring states Michigan, Wisconsin and Indiana, with many low-wage workers still needing stronger workers� compensation benefits and support.

The Governor worked closely with Sen. Terry Link (D-Lake Bluff) and Rep. Jay Hoffman (D-Colllinsville), sponsors of House Bill 2137, to curb soaring costs of workers� compensation and decrease financial risks for employers, increase monetary benefits for employees who are injured or killed on the job, and heighten enforcement of fraudulent activity.

"Businesses are hit with high costs and working people are paying the consequences by not getting the benefits they deserve. We may now be able to reduce business costs, provide more generous benefits and fight fraud. I am proud to be standing with the Governor today as he signs this critical legislation,� said Sen. Link.

�Governor Blagojevich made it a priority to bring labor, businesses and the General Assembly to the table to improve our workers� compensation system, and that�s what we did with this law,� Rep. Hoffman said.

This aggressive and comprehensive workers� comp reform marks an unprecedented victory for businesses, workers, medical care providers and insurance professionals. The new law:

Implements a medical fee schedule. Creates cost containment in workers� compensation for Illinois business owners by joining 44 other states in implementing a medical fee schedule that will be indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This is expected to save Illinois businesses millions of dollars annually by limiting the amount that may be charged for medical procedures. This will reduce medical costs, a primary expense in workers' compensation cases.

Substantially increases worker benefits. Increases the minimum benefit for a worker killed on the job from $400,000 for 20 years of payments to the greater amount of $500,000 or 25 years of payments. It also increases burial benefits for fatally injured workers to $8,000 from $4,200 and provides more benefits for low-wage workers.

Establishes a fraud unit. A workers� compensation fraud statute and investigation unit within the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation�s (IDFPR) Division of Insurance will investigate charges of workers� compensation fraud, including uninsured employers. It strengthens penalties and fines, creates a work-stop order for employers who fail to obtain workers' compensation insurance and allows for reporting of fraudulent claims by employees. This unit will help to find fraud and deter future fraud from within the system. It will save businesses money by eliminating the need to pay for unjustified claims.

Creates a third panel to the Workers� Compensation Commission. Commission will expedite resolution of disputed claims that will allow injured workers to receive quicker treatment and return to work sooner. This reduces costs for business by lowering medical cost due to quicker treatment, as well as decreasing litigation costs. It increases penalties for unreasonable delays of workers' compensation benefits from $10 per day to $30 per day and from $2,500 per claim to $10,000 per claim.

�An extraordinary amount of work and negotiation has gone into shaping this much-needed comprehensive reform of the Illinois Workers� Compensation Act. The changes will improve efficiency and benefits for workers, greatly assist business with cost containment and work to expose fraud by employers, the insurance industry and workers,� said Margaret Blackshere, president of the Illinois AFL-CIO. �A huge debt of gratitude goes to Michael Carrigan, secretary-treasurer of the Illinois AFL-CIO for spearheading the negotiations for Labor and to Governor Blagojevich for having the foresight to address this critical issue.�

"The changes to this state's Workers' Compensation system signed into law today are the most significant reforms we've seen in decades. Business and labor leaders should be commended for working together to provide improved benefits at a lower cost for employers,� said Greg Baise, President & CEO of the Illinois Manufacturers' Association.

�Having been involved with the Illinois Workers� Compensation system for nearly 20 years, this is clearly the most comprehensive workers' compensation reform in a generation. It addresses multiple issues, including fraud investigation, cost containment for employers, improving the hearing process for both workers and employers, and increasing benefits for widows, widowers and orphans. This is a win-win for both employers and employees of the state," Illinois Workers� Compensation Commission Chairman Dennis Ruth said.

"For the first time in nearly 30 years, the Governor and members of the General Assembly used their leadership skills to bring business and labor together to reduce business costs and reform one of the most expensive systems in the country," said Dave Vite, Chairman and CEO of the Illinois Retail Merchants� Association.

�Governor Blagojevich deserves credit for making workers compensation a legislative priority in 2005. Illinois� workers compensation laws were long overdue for attention. The members of the Illinois Chamber are eager to continue to build upon the cooperation and progress that was accomplished this year,� said Douglas Whitley, President and CEO, Illinois Chamber of Commerce.

HB 2137 is effective immediately.

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) today made the following statement regarding President Bush�s nomination of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court:

�The next Supreme Court justice will make decisions that will affect the lives of millions of Americans for years to come. Even if a Supreme Court nominee is honest and professionally competent, that person must also be committed to protecting the rights and liberties that are at the core of our democracy.�

�The President had an opportunity to unite the country with his Supreme Court nomination, to nominate an individual in the image of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead, by putting forward John Roberts' name, President Bush has chosen a more controversial nominee and guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process.�

�Now the Judiciary Committee will begin its work. For my part, I will look for one thing -- will this nominee strive to protect the rights of all Americans or will he be a judicial activist with an ideological agenda rather than an independent judge with an open mind.�

Senator Durbin is the Assistant Democratic Leader and has served on the Senate Judiciary Committee for 7 years. The Judiciary Committee is comprised of 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats. This is the first vacancy on the Supreme Court in 11 years � the longest period of time the U.S. has gone without a Supreme Court vacancy since 1823.

U.S. Senator Barack Obama today issued the following statement about the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court:

"I take very seriously the Senate's advice and consent role regarding a Supreme Court nomination. I will be closely following the Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Roberts and will thoroughly review his record before deciding whether or not to vote to confirm him. I hope that this process will be civil and deliberate, because that is what the American people deserve."

A video of an anti-abortion demonstration in Libertyville has set a new circulation milestone for AtCenterNetwork, an online news and commentary website that was launched in April.

The video, posted just two days ago, has already been viewed by over a thousand people. "The response has been far beyond what we anticipated," said Lee Goodman, AtCenterNetwork's publisher.

"We focus on local events in the Chicago suburbs, so we usually get mostly local viewers. But this story was picked up by some of the leading blogs, and people all over the country have been viewing it and commenting on it. We feel like we have really contributed to the dialogue about abortion."

In the video, anti-abortion demonstrators are asked what should happen to women who get abortions if abortion becomes illegal. The question is timely because the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade opinion that legalized abortion may be challenged once Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement takes the bench.

"We let the demonstrators tell us what they thought, in their own words. Apparently, a lot of people who are pro-choice were surprised at the demonstrators' answers," said Goodman.

The video can be viewed at AtCenterNetwork. New videos are added every Monday and Thursday.

by John Hmurovic

�Mark, you don�t get it!� � Congressman Charles Rangel (D-New York) to Congressman Mark Kirk, at the end of a 2003 debate about the draft on the PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer.

In a recent article in the Pioneer Press Congressman Mark Kirk defended himself against criticism from State Senator Susan Garrett (D-Lake Forest). In a cable TV interview with Jeff Berkowitz, Garrett said, �in the 10th Congressional District we don�t have a voice who comes out and listens to us, who says�by the way, here is one of the biggest topics going on in Washington, DC�Social Security�so we can raise our hand and say, Mark, where do you stand? We don�t get an answer.�

Kirk objected to that. He insisted that he has opened up a dialogue with residents on key issues, and cited, as an example, the fact that he �just completed a major conference on increasing federal support for suburban police departments and will continue to focus my efforts on this issue and other key issues��

He doesn�t get it.

The conference he referred to does address an important issue, but he missed the point that Garrett, and many others, have made about a major deficiency in his performance as our congressman: He�s not interested in discussing controversial topics with us.

The invitation list for the conference he referred to consisted primarily of police department administrators and officers. It was not for the general public, and the discussion was narrowly focused. There was no talk of Social Security, or the war in Iraq. He didn�t explain why he favors, for the first time in the 300 year history of our U.S. Constitution, a limit on our right to free speech by banning the burning of the American flag. Nor did he explain why he voted to choke off funding for the United Nations, or his continued support for spending and tax policies that are digging us deeper into a deficit hole. He simply got news coverage for his conference, and left town.

Congressman Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) has held several town hall meetings in his district this year. They talked about taxes, Social Security, homeland security, federal spending, etc. Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (D-California) had over 550 people show up to talk about Social Security at one of her town meetings. I randomly picked those two names off the Internet. Other congressmen are going back to their district to talk about controversial topics�.but not Mark Kirk.

It�s a disturbing pattern. After the invasion of Iraq he didn�t hold a public meeting to talk about what was probably the most important issue in his congressional career. Instead, he held one to talk about traffic congestion. In 2000, when he first ran Congress, Kirk participated in numerous debates with his opponent. In 2004, seeking re-election, he agreed to just one. And while Susan Garrett was willing to be interviewed by Berkowitz on his cable TV show, Mark Kirk is not. He appeared frequently when he first ran for Congress, but has avoided it ever since. Why does he not want us to hear about his record?

Look at the recent newsletter he sent to 10th District residents. Did it tell you why he voted to have the government interfere in the Terry Schaivo case? Did it mention his complete backing for the war in Iraq? No. His newsletter addressed matters like high gas prices, a Memorial Day tribute to the Greatest Generation, and a photo of President Bush promoting Lieutenant Commander Kirk to Commander in the Navy Reserve. All are nice stories, and some are important issues, but none are controversial.

Meanwhile, about 92,000 residents of the 10th District receive Social Security, and we don�t know if Congressman Kirk supports the President�s plan to privatize it. He still refuses to state his position.

When asked about the reluctance of politicians to address the Social Security issue, Kirk told the Associated Press, �Cowardice is always an option.� No one is suggesting that Kirk is a coward for not standing up and discussing the issues with his constituents. But isn�t a congressman supposed to represent our views on some issues, and at other times explain why his ideas differ from ours? Maybe the problem is, some of us would like a congressman who listens to us and who has the courage of his convictions�but Mark Kirk just doesn�t get it.

Statement of Senator Richard Durbin on the resignation of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Justice Sandra Day O�Connor has served our nation with distinction and honor and has touched the lives of many Americans in many ways. Justice O'Connor's brilliance and 24 years of service on the Supreme Court have left a profound legacy. She is routinely called "the most powerful woman in America."

Justice O'Connor's career on the Court was marked by independence, balance and moderation. Her mentor was former Senator Barry Goldwater and her brand of mainstream conservatism mirrored his American values.

She has been the deciding vote in dozens of 5-4 cases involving some of the most controversial issues in the nation: privacy rights, affirmative action, the separation of church and state, federalism and the power of Congress, the death penalty, and civil rights and liberties.

Her nomination to the Supreme Court in 1981 was historic � she was the first woman nominated to the Supreme Court. But in the 24 years since then, she has become much more than a symbol for equality. Her words and her courage have given real substance and the force of law to equal rights in America.

America owes a great debt of gratitude to Justice O'Connor and her family. The President and Congress owe the Court a Justice who will follow in her fine tradition.

This is a lifetime appointment that can radically shift the direction of the Court for decades to come. I urge President Bush to seek both the advice and the consent of the United States Senate in selecting a candidate to succeed Justice O�Connor.

Senator Durbin has served on the Senate Judiciary Committee for 7 years. This is the first vacancy on the Supreme Court in 11 years � the longest period of time the U.S. has gone without a Supreme Court vacancy since 1823.

This week Congress will debate the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

I wish I could vote in favor of CAFTA. In the end, I believe that expanding trade and breaking down barriers between countries is good for our economy and for our security, for American consumers and American workers. CAFTA would benefit farmers here in Illinois as well as agricultural and manufacturing interests across the country.

We also shouldn't kid ourselves into believing that voting against trade agreements will stop globalization--especially ones like CAFTA, where the countries involved have combined economies one-sixth the size of Illinois'.

Globalization is not someone's political agenda. It is a technological revolution that is fundamentally changing the world's economy, producing winners and losers along the way. The question is not whether we can stop it, but how we respond to it. It's not whether we should protect our workers from competition, but what we can do to fully enable them to compete against workers all over the world.

So far, America has not effectively answered these questions and American workers are suffering as a result. I meet these workers all across Illinois, workers whose jobs moved to Mexico or China and are now competing with their own children for jobs that pay 7 bucks an hour. In town meetings and union halls, I've tried to tell these workers the truth--that these jobs aren't coming back, that globalization is here to stay and that they will have to train more and learn more to get the new jobs of tomorrow.

But when they wonder how they will get this training and this education, when they ask what they will do about their health-care bills and their lower wages and the general sense of financial insecurity that seems to grow with each passing day, I cannot look them in the eyes and tell them that their government is doing a single thing about these problems.

That is why I won't vote for CAFTA.

There are real problems in the agreement itself. It does less to protect labor than previous trade agreements, and does little to address enforcement of basic environmental standards in the Central American countries and the Dominican Republic. Moreover, there has been talk that, in order to get votes from legislators from sugar-producing states, the Bush administration may be preserving indefensible sugar subsidies that benefit a handful of wealthy growers and cripple Illinois candy manufacturers.

But the larger problem is what's missing from our prevailing policy on trade and globalization--namely, meaningful assistance for those who are not reaping its benefits and a plan to equip American workers with the skills and support they need to succeed in a 21st Century economy.

So far, almost all of our energy and almost all of these trade agreements are about making life easier for the winners of globalization, while we do nothing as life gets harder for American workers. In 2004, nearly 150,000 workers were certified as having lost their jobs due to trade and were thus eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance--and this number doesn't even count service workers like janitors and cafeteria employees.

But this is about more than displaced workers. Our failure to respond to globalization is causing a race to the bottom that means lower wages and stingier health and retiree benefits for all Americans. It's causing a squeeze on middle-class families who are working harder but making even less and struggling to stay afloat in this new economy. As one Downstate worker told me during a recent visit, "It doesn't do me much good if I'm saving a dollar on a T-shirt at Wal-Mart, but don't have a job."

And so now we must choose. We must decide whether we will sit idly by and do nothing while American workers continue to lose out in this new world, or if we will act to build a community where, at the very least, everyone has a chance to work hard, get ahead and reach their dreams.

If we are to promote free and fair trade--and we should--then we must make a national commitment to prepare every child in America with the education they need to compete in the new economy; to provide retraining and wage insurance so even if you lose your job you can train for another; to make sure worker retraining helps people without getting them caught in bureaucracy; that it helps service workers as well as manufacturing workers and encourages people to re-enter the workforce as soon as possible.

We also need to figure out a way to tell workers that no matter where you work or how many times you switch jobs, you can take your health care and pension with you always, so you have the flexibility to move to a better job or start a new business.

We cannot expect to insulate ourselves from all the dislocations brought about by free trade, and most of the workers I meet don't expect Washington to do so. But we need a national commitment.

In America, we have always furthered the idea that everybody has a stake in this country and that everyone deserves a shot at opportunity.

The imbalance in this administration's policies, as reflected in the CAFTA debate, fails to provide American workers with their shot at opportunity. It's time we gave them that shot.

U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston) today released a statement calling for accountability from President Bush on the War in Iraq.

Hours before the President�s address on the war to troops at Fort Bragg, Representative Schakowsky asked the President to level with the American people about when our soldiers will be able to leave Iraq and to explain why the U.S. is spending over a billion dollars a week on the war while our troops still do not have all of the equipment necessary to protect themselves. The full text of Representative Schakowsky�s statement is below:

�Last night I went to the floor of the House and read the names of some of the more than 1700 young men and women who have been killed in Iraq since the war officially began in 2003.�

�The number of dead is growing faster than ever now.�

�The Bush Administration is delusional about the situation in Iraq just as it has been from the moment the decision was made to invade a country that never was a threat to the United States. And now we know, from the Downing St. Memo, that decision was based on a series of lies.�

�Iraq has become more dangerous not less. It has become what it wasn�t before the war � a breeding ground for terrorists.�

�We don�t need a pep talk from the President. We need accountability. We need answers. The President needs to explain to the American people why it is that the U.S. is spending more than a billion dollars each week in Iraq and still our troops do not have the armored vehicles they need or the health care they need when they come home. He needs to tell us how long he intends to send our soldiers to fight and die in a war that never should have been. Donald Rumsfeld originally said this conflict would be over in 5 months at most � now he says 12 years.�

�The President has left himself and all Americans with no good options. But the worst of all is to keep our soldiers in Iraq. It is time to start bringing them home.�

In an effort to keep dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands, Governor Rod R. Blagojevich signed legislation today regulating the sale and purchase of stun guns and Tasers. The legislation was sponsored by Sen. Jeff Schoenberg (D-Evanston) and Rep. Elaine Nekritz (D-Des Plaines),

The new law, Senate Bill 1962, requires Tasers and other stun gun purchasers to obtain a Firearm Owner�s Identification Card and submit to background checks, just like they would to obtain a gun. Illinois becomes the first state in the nation to require a firearm license to own a stun gun, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

�Tasers and other stun guns can be very dangerous in the wrong hands � the amount of voltage they exert alone can be lethal. By treating these weapons just as seriously as we treat firearms, we can make our streets and neighborhoods safer,� said Gov. Blagojevich.

A Taser looks like a gun and can fire two barbed darts up to a distance of 15 feet, which remain attached to the gun by wires. The fishhook-like darts are designed to penetrate into the target�s clothing or skin and are designed to cause instant incapacitation by delivering a 50,000 volt shock. A stun gun is a handheld object that is held by the user and placed directly against another person. The prongs at the end of the stun gun touch the target and deliver an electric current.

Amnesty International estimates more than 80 deaths have occurred in the United States and Canada among people shot by Tasers and other stun guns since 1999. In twelve of the U.S. fatalities, medical examiners cited the stun gun as one of the causes of death or a contributing factor in the death.

Tasers and stun guns are viewed by law enforcement as a less lethal alternative to firearms to subdue suspects. More than 5,000 police departments nationwide use them. But, Tasers and stun guns are sold to private citizens at gun stores and on the internet. And, Taser and stun gun companies appear to be trying to increase sales to civilians.

�Civilians buying these weapons should be required to undergo criminal background checks and a waiting period before they buy something capable of administering that kind of force,� said Sen. Schoenberg. �This legislation provides another tool for law enforcement officers tasked with the job of protecting us and enforcing the laws of our state.�

�By requiring background checks and a waiting period, we can assure Illinois citizens that these powerful devices do not fall into the wrong hands,� said Representative Nekritz.

The law adds stun guns and Tasers to the types of weapons that must follow the requirements of the FOID Card Act. The bill creates the following restrictions:

1. In order to possess a Taser or stun gun, an individual must have a valid FOID card, as is currently required for firearms.

2. Sellers of Taser or stun guns must check the buyers FOID card and keep the record of sale for ten years, the same requirements for firearms sales.

3. When a licensed firearms dealer sells a Taser or stun gun, they must request a background check of the buyer.

4. The 24-hour waiting period required for long guns, shotguns, and rifles, will also apply to taser and stun gun purchases.

�Stun guns are more than weapons that can be used for self-defense. They also can be used in robberies and other violent crimes and therefore must be kept out of the hands of felons,� said Chicago Alderman Edward M. Burke, who is the sponsor of a similar local initiative.

�This is also an example of how Governor Blagojevich has acted quickly and decisively to keep pace with the emerging dangers of new and evolving technology. I emphatically commend him for signing this important legislation into law today and I am confident that other jurisdictions will soon follow his lead,� added the Alderman.

Exceptions to the FOID card Act currently in place for firearms will also apply to Taser and stun guns. Illinois law already prohibits stun gun and Tasers from being concealed and carried.

This bill is effective January 1st, 2006.

Democrats are growing increasingly optimistic about their chances of defeating Republican Congressman Mark Kirk in 2006, as the list of possible challengers grows. Even with State Senator Susan Garrett�s (D-Lake Forest) decision not to challenge the three-term incumbent, a number of other Democrats are showing an interest in the race, according to Lauren Beth Gash, chair of the Tenth Congressional District Democrats (Tenth Dems) and the Tenth Congressional District Democratic Committewoman.

�We have a committee of 10th District residents who have been meeting with potential candidates,� Gash said. �There is a tremendous amount of interest this year from candidates who feel that Mark Kirk is very vulnerable in 2006. And the volunteers are already activated and organizing for a campaign.�

So far, the Tenth Dems committee has met with Jay Footlik, a North Shore native who has been a Special Assistant to President Clinton and a senior advisor to the Kerry-Edwards campaign in 2004; Zane Smith, an attorney and a Winnetka Park Board member; and Barry Bradford, a Stevenson High School teacher who has earned national attention for heading a campaign to reopen the �Mississippi Burning� case, in which three young Civil Rights workers were shot to death in 1964. There will be interviews with other potential candidates in the coming days, including Lake County Councilman Angelo Kyle of Waukegan, who is also the president of the National Association of Counties, and class action and public interest attorney Clint Krislov of Wilmette. In addition, there have been informal discussions with several others who have shown an interest in running, and more formal meetings are planned.

�We are working with a list of about a dozen names,� said Anne Wedner of Winnetka, who chairs the candidate search committee. �We plan to talk with them and let them know that if they are the candidate, they will have the support of a solid base of 10th District residents who are willing to work hard to help them get elected.�

Tenth Congressional District Democratic Committeeman Bill Crowley said that he and other Tenth Dems committee members have also done phone interviews with a number of potential candidates. He agreed with Gash that there is a growing optimism among Democrats for their chances in 2006.

�Even after the 10th District was redrawn a few years ago to make it, on paper, more Republican,� Crowley said, �the 2004 election shows that this portion of Cook and Lake counties is becoming increasingly Democratic.�

In fact, John Kerry won 53-percent of the vote in the 10th District, an area that has been traditionally Republican. It was one of a handful of congressional districts in the United States which Kerry won, that was also carried by a Republican congressional candidate. Kirk won in 2004 with 64-percent of the vote.

�No one denies that Mark Kirk will be difficult to beat,� said Gash, who nearly defeated Kirk in 2000 when she got 49-percent of the vote against him, �but people are beginning to question some of his votes and his actions.� For example, she cites his failure to take a public stand on President Bush�s plan to dismantle Social Security, and his failure to hold even one public forum in the district to find out how residents feel about the issue. �He�s not keeping in touch with this district, and I think that�s one reason that people are beginning to line up to run against him.�

Democratic optimism is also fed by the 2004 victory of Melissa Bean over long-time Republican Congressman Phil Crane. That was in the 8th District, which borders the 10th. North Suburban Democrats also feel they have a good chance in 2006 to win the seat currently held by retiring Congressman Henry Hyde. He represents the 6th Congressional District, which also shares a border with the 10th.

Testifying today before a Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Regional Hearing with other elected and local officials, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich presented Illinois� detailed and comprehensive analysis refuting the U.S. Department of Defense�s recommendations that would take almost 1,900 jobs from the Rock Island Arsenal, strip the 183rd Fighter Wing in Springfield of its F-16 aircraft and more than 600 jobs, and eliminate more than 2,000 jobs from the Great Lakes Naval Training Center.

The Governor has been leading a coordinated effort for more than two years with the Illinois Congressional Delegation, other elected officials and local leaders to prevent Illinois� military bases from ending up on the BRAC list that will be announced in September. He stressed that these actions are a threat to our national and homeland security and are not cost effective.

�We live in very uncertain times, and any actions that would threaten our homeland security would be a grave mistake. Illinois� military bases are unique facilities whose missions cannot be duplicated, they have tremendous military value and they play critical roles in ensuring the safety and security of our country. This isn�t about protecting jobs � this is about protecting the people of Illinois and our country. The Pentagon certainly isn�t perfect, which is why we are fighting its flawed reasoning,� Gov. Blagojevich said.

The Governor spoke about the Great Lakes Naval Station, which would lose more than 2,000 well-paying positions from a community that simply cannot absorb this job loss. Further, some of these positions are being moved to facilities with a lower military value, again deviating from the BRAC standards.

�The size of the realignment impacting Great Lakes is enormous and unprecedented. It involves consolidating five locations into one medical training center based in San Antonio, Texas. The cost of construction in San Antonio to house these realignments will be $500 million, with the overall cost of the total realignment at an excess of $1 billion. According to the Pentagon�s figures, the anticipated payback for this move will not happen for at least 10 years. This is an extremely risky venture that would never be undertaken by private industry,� Gov. Blagojevich said.

U.S. Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and many other federal, state and local officials joined Gov. Blagojevich at the hearing.

Gov. Blagojevich is continuing the strong partnerships that have existed between the State of Illinois, the Congressional Delegation and the local community to preserve and strengthen Illinois� bases and will keep working to let the Commission know that Illinois will assist in any way possible to bring new missions to these bases.

The Commission will publicly release its BRAC report by September 8th and will send it to President Bush. The President has until September 23rd to approve or disapprove the list. The BRAC list must then be sent to Congress by November 7th, who must also approve or disapprove the list.

After several high profile financial information security breaches across the nation, Governor Rod R. Blagojevich today signed several pieces of legislation designed to safeguard consumers against identity theft.

The bills the Governor signed not only place more stringent regulations on businesses, requiring them to quickly notify consumers of possible security breaches, but also increase the penalties against identity thieves and provide victims with the resources necessary to protect themselves from future violation.

The cornerstone of the package, House Bill 1633, makes Illinois the second state in the nation to require companies to quickly notify consumers in the state if their personal information is compromised due to a breach in company security.

�These new laws will provide consumers some peace of mind and protection from the fastest growing crime in the country - identity theft,� said Gov. Blagojevich. �Last year alone, identity thieves cost consumers $550 million.

One of the best ways we can protect consumers is to require companies to notify customers quickly when their records have been compromised. These laws can help individuals take steps to protect their assets and identities before thieves wreak havoc on their credit.�

The Governor and Attorney General Lisa Madigan worked closely with the Illinois Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) and state legislators to create the Personal Information Protection Act.

Sponsored by Rep. John Fritchey (D-Chicago) in the House and Sen. Ira Silverstein (D-Chicago) in the Senate, the new law requires any entity that collects personal data to notify those consumers affected by a breach in security without delay.

�ID theft is a crime that plagues consumers and their credit records. With all of the recent security breaches, it is critical that consumers are informed when their personal information may be compromised,� Attorney General Madigan said. �With the knowledge that sensitive personal information has been breached, consumers can act quickly to stop or minimize damage to their credit history. This legislation gives consumers the power to protect themselves from a crime that can cost a great deal of time, money and peace of mind.�

HB 1633 came in response to an October 2004 incident in which Georgia-based ChoicePoint, sold the personal information of more than 145,000 people, including 5,000 Illinoisans, to identity thieves who pretended to be legitimate businesses. Even though officials at ChoicePoint were aware of the breach, consumers weren�t notified of the situation until months later, when officials, prompted by an existing California law requiring the disclosure of any security breach which puts Californians� personal information at risk, revealed the information.

Other massive security breaches have earned attention recently: roughly 1.5 million DSW Shoe Warehouse customers� financial information were compromised in April; tapes containing information about 3.9 million CitiFinancial customers were reported missing earlier this month; and just last week Motorola disclosed that computers were stolen that containing the social security numbers of potentially thousands of employees.

�Over 9 million people had their information stolen or misplaced this year. The Breach Notification Act will force companies to take more responsibility in protecting our personal information," Illinois PIRG consumer advocate John Gaudette said.

�It can take years for a person to undo the damage caused by identity theft,� said Rep. Fritchey. �This new law will help ensure that consumers get the information they need to prevent them from becoming victims in the first place.�

�The actions of identity thieves against consumers is deplorable, and that is why the state legislature had to take matters into its own hands � to protect the hard working people of Illinois from being taken advantage of. I applaud Gov. Blagojevich for taking this critical step to further protect our citizens,� said Sen. Silverstein.

House Bill 1633 becomes effective January 1, 2006.

Illinois 9th District Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston), Chief Deputy Whip and member of the House Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, joined Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) and a bi-partisan coalition of Members of Congress at a press conference today to introduce a bill to prevent new oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes.

Without Congressional renewal, the temporary ban on drilling in the Great Lakes is set to expire in 2007.

The full text of Representative Schakowsky�s remarks is below, as prepared for delivery:

�Four years ago, Congress enacted a ban on drilling in the Great Lakes. We�ve extended that ban, but it�s still only temporary. New drilling in the Great Lakes is a real threat that could occur before the Bush Administration�s term expires.�

�The Great Lakes contain over 95% of the United States� freshwater and over 20% of the world�s freshwater. An oil spill could have a severe effect on the 45 million people who call the Great Lakes region home. There are already an average of 135 oil spills per year in the U.S. Great Lakes. If new drilling is allowed near the shorelines, the number and volume of spills could significantly increase.�

�Some states, like Illinois, have banned drilling in the Great Lakes. Others have not. Oil spills and pollution know no borders. The only way to protect residents in Illinois or any Great Lakes state is to pass a federal ban on drilling.�

�Chicagoans know something about beach closings. The Lake Michigan beachfront is closed far too often because of pollution. Adding oil spills and gas leaks to our troubles is too high of a risk to take for too little fuel.�

�The President and his allies in Congress have relied on an antiquated energy policy that uses fossil fuels and outdated technology to produce the nation�s power supply. Similar to drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, extracting the small amount of oil and gas near the shorelines of our Great Lakes would power the U.S. only for days, not years. Compromising our nation�s most important water supply to obtain several days worth of fuel is a short-sighted strategy that could have a disastrous effect on the health and well-being of millions of Americans.�

�The U.S. should tap into renewable energy sources as part of any long-term solution to an energy shortage. Solar, wind, hydrogen, and fuel cell technology can lead America to a future of energy independence, a future where we don�t have to rely on the Middle East for oil and can produce power without significant pollution.�

�As the late Senator from Illinois, Paul Simon, wrote in his book, Tapped Out, water may replace oil as the most valuable resource on Earth. The Great Lakes are one of the most precious resources in America. Oil and water don�t mix, and there�s no reason to endanger America�s most important water supply by allowing drilling in the Great Lakes.�

Assistant Senate Democratic Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) today announced their �40 in 20� proposal that sets a new national priority to break America's dangerous and growing dependence on foreign oil.

Durbin and Reid's objective, endorsed by former CIA Director James Woolsey at a news conference today, sets a national security goal of reducing foreign petroleum imports by 40 percent by 2025, or a reduction of 7.64 million barrels per day. The �40 in 20� goal will be offered as a Democratic amendment to the energy bill expected to be debated on the Senate floor this week.

�Our goal of reducing imports of foreign oil by 40% over the next 20 years is a matter of national security and economic prosperity,� Durbin said. �It will not only make us safer, it will help move us toward job growth, and a healthier, cleaner environment. Leadership, investment in American ingenuity and innovation, and a commitment to succeed, will guide us to our destination.�

Durbin added, �If this amendment is accepted by the Republican-controlled Senate, we could be investing $100 billion in America in 2025 instead of spending it overseas.� Last year, according to the Energy Information Administration, American taxpayers spent more than $110 billion to import foreign oil.

Reaching the 40% reduction goal over a 20-year period can be achieved through a variety of ways. One recipe includes saving four million barrels per day through growth in the biofuels and ethanol market, where Illinois farmers can lead the way in the production of liquid transportation fuels. Additionally, nearly one million barrels per day can come from modest changes to the aviation, residential and industrial sectors; more than one million barrels per day can be saved by simply increasing the efficiency of heavy duty trucks; and almost 600,000 million barrels per day in savings can be reached by establishing efficiency standards for replacement tires on our cars. This does not even account for the fuel savings the United States will witness from the growing hybrid automobile fleet.

�While the �40 in 20� goal is clear, the proposal recognizes that there are different measures we can implement to reach energy independence. We expect to consider amendments in the next two weeks that will complement our vision and help America reach this goal," Durbin said.

�Our nation's thirst for foreign oil, and our competition with countries like China for the dwindling worldwide supply of crude, is leading us down a dead end path. We have no choice but to turn around before it�s too late,� Durbin added. �American consumers can�t afford to continue to pay the rising prices at the gas pump because our nation�s continued dependence on oil cartels and foreign production. The solution for energy independence is right here at home -- not in an oil field in a desert across the ocean.�

The United States, with only 3% of the world�s proven reserves, consumes 25% of all oil produced worldwide.

Appealing to the Republican majority for support, Durbin concluded, �President Bush and Republicans in Congress have a choice either to join Democrats on the highway to freedom or to continue to set up barricades that will keep us on the road to insecurity. It's time to put aside partisan differences and focus on America because our nation's security depends on it.�

Remarks of Sen. Barack Obama before the U.S. Senate, regarding a resolution to apologize for past Congressional inaction to fight lynchings in the United States

I rise in strong support of this resolution.

Before I make any further remarks, I would like to recognize Doria D. Johnson, and thank her for coming. She is from Evanston, IL. Ms. Johnson is the great, great-granddaughter of Anthony Crawford, a South Carolina farmer who was lynched nearly 100 years ago for the crime of being a successful Black farmer. I am sure that this day has special meaning for her, and for the other family members of those who were impacted by these great tragedies of the past. I thank her and others for being here today.

Since America's darkest days of Jim Crow, separate but equal, fire hoses, church bombings, cross burnings and lynchings, the people of this great Nation have found the courage, on occasion, to speak up and speak out so that we can right this country's wrongs, and walk together down that long road of transformation that continues to perfect our Union. It is a transformation that brought us the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act; a transformation that led to the first Black Member of Congress, and the first Black and White children holding hands in the same playground and the same school; a transformation without which I would not be standing here speaking today. But I am. And I am proud because, thanks to this resolution, we are taking another step in acknowledging a dark corner of our history. We are taking a step that allows us--after looking at the 4,700 deaths from lynchings, the hate that was behind those deaths, and this Chamber's refusal to try and stop them--to finally say that we were wrong.

There is a power in acknowledging error and mistake. It is a power that potentially transforms not only those who were impacted directly by the lynchings, but also those who are the progeny of the perpetrators of these crimes. There is a piercing photographic exhibit in Chicago right now that displays some of the lynchings that occurred across the country over the past two centuries. These photographs show that what is often most powerful is not the gruesome aspects of the lynching itself, nor the terrible rending of the body that took place. No, what is most horrific, what is most disturbing to the soul is the photographs in which you see young little White girls or young little White boys with their parents on an outing, looking at the degradation of another human being. One wonders not only what the lynching did to the family member of those who were lynched, but also what the effect was on the sensibilities of those young people who stood there, watching.

Now that we are finally acknowledging this injustice, we have an opportunity to reflect on the cruelties that inhabit all of us. We can now take the time to teach our children to treat people who look different than us with the same respect that we would expect for ourselves. So it is fitting, it is proper, and it is right that we are doing what we are doing today.

However, I do hope, as we commemorate this past injustice, that this Chamber also spends some time doing something concrete and tangible to heal the long shadow of slavery and the legacy of racial discrimination, so that 100 years from now we can look back and be proud, and not have to apologize once again. That means completing the unfinished work of the civil rights movement, and closing the gap that still exists in health care, education, and income. There are more ways to perpetrate violence than simply a lynching . There is the violence that we subject young children to when they do not have any opportunity or hope, when they stand on street corners not thinking much of themselves, not thinking that their lives are worth living. That is a form of violence that this Chamber could do something about.

As we are spending time apologizing today for these past failures of the Senate to act, we should also spend some time debating the extension of the Voting Rights Act and the best way to extend health care coverage to over 45 million uninsured Americans. We should be considering how we can make certain that college is affordable for young African-American children, the great, great-grandchildren or the great, great, great-grandchildren of those who have been wronged. These are the ways we can finally ensure that the blessings of opportunity reach every single American, and finally claim a victory in the long struggle for civil rights.

Today is a step in the right direction. Today's actions give us an opportunity to heal and to move forward. But for those who still harbor anger in their hearts, who still wonder how to move on from such terrible violence, it is worth reflecting for a moment on one remarkable individual: Mamie Till Mobley.

Mamie Till Mobley's child Emmett was only 14 years old when they found him in the Mississippi River, beaten and bloodied beyond recognition. After Ms. Mobley saw her child, her baby, unrecognizable, his face so badly beaten it barely looked human, someone suggested that she should have a closed casket at his funeral. She said: No, we are going to have an open casket, and everybody is going to witness what they did to my child.

The courage displayed by this mother galvanized the civil rights movement in the North and in the South. And, despite the immensity of the pain she felt, Mamie Till Mobley has repeatedly said: I never wasted a day hating. Imagine that. She never wasted a day hating, not one day.

I rise today, thanking God that the United States Congress--the representatives of the American people and our highest ideals--will not waste one more day without issuing the apology that will continue to help us march down the path of transformation that Mamie Till Mobley has been on her whole life, and that the people in attendance in the gallery have been on for generations.

I am grateful for this tribute, and I am looking forward to joining hands with my colleagues and the American people to make sure that when our children and grandchildren look back at our actions in this Chamber, we do not have something to apologize for.

Good morning President Taylor, the Board of Trustees, faculty, parents, family, friends, and the Class of 2005. Congratulations on your graduation, and thank you for allowing me the honor to be a part of it.

Well, it�s been about six months now since you sent me to Washington as your U.S. Senator. And for those of you muttering under your breath �I didn�t send you anywhere,� that�s ok too � maybe we�ll hold a little Pumphandle after the ceremony and I can change your mind for next time.

So far it�s been a fascinating journey. Each time I walk onto the Senate floor, I�m reminded of the history, for good and for ill, that has been made there. But there have also been a few surreal moments. For example, I remember the day before I was sworn in, when we decided to hold a press conference in our office. Now, here I am, 99th in seniority � which, I was proud wasn�t dead last until I found out that the only reason we aren�t 100th is because Illinois is bigger than Colorado.

So I�m 99th in seniority, and the reporters are all cramped into our tiny transition office that was somewhere near the Janitor�s closet in the basement of the Dirksen Building. It�s my first day in the building, I hadn�t taken one vote, I hadn�t introduced one bill, I hadn�t even sat down at my desk, and this very earnest reporter asks:

�Senator Obama, what�s your place in history?�

I laughed out loud. Place in history? I thought he was kidding! At that point, I wasn�t even sure the other Senators would save me a place at the cool lunch table.

But as I was thinking about what words I could share with this class, about what�s next, what�s possible, and what opportunities lay ahead, I think it�s not a bad question to ask yourselves:

�What will be my place in history?�

In other eras, across distant lands, this is a question that could be answered with relative ease and certainty. As a servant of Rome, you knew you would spend your life forced to build somebody else�s Empire. As a peasant in 11th Century China, you knew that no matter how hard you worked, the local warlord might take everything you had � and that famine might come knocking on your door any day. As a subject of King George, you knew that your freedom to worship and speak and build your own life would be ultimately limited by the throne.

And then, America happened.

A place where destiny was not a destination, but a journey to be shared and shaped and remade by people who had the gall, the temerity to believe that, against all odds, they could form �a more perfect union� on this new frontier. And as people around the world began to hear the tale of the lowly colonists who overthrew an Empire for the sake of an idea, they came.

Across the oceans and the ages, they settled in Boston and Charleston, Chicago and St. Louis, Kalamazoo and Galesburg, to try and build their own American Dream. This collective dream moved forward imperfectly � it was scarred by our treatment of native peoples, betrayed by slavery, clouded by the subjugation of women, shaken by war and depression. And yet, brick by brick, rail by rail, calloused hand by calloused hand, people kept dreaming, and building, and working, and marching, and petitioning their government, until they made America a land where the question of our place in history is not answered for us, but by us.

Have we failed at times? Absolutely. Will you occasionally fail when you embark on your own American journey? Surely. But the test is not perfection.

The true test of the American ideal is whether we are able to recognize our failings and then rise together to meet the challenges of our time. Whether we allow ourselves to be shaped by events and history, or whether we act to shape them. Whether chance of birth or circumstance decides life�s big winners and losers, or whether we build a community where, at the very least, everyone has a chance to work hard, get ahead, and reach their dreams.

We have faced this choice before.

At the end of the Civil War, when farmers and their families began moving into the cities to work in the big factories that were sprouting up all across America, we had to decide: Do we do nothing and allow the captains of industry and robber barons to run roughshod over the economy and workers by competing to see who can pay the lowest wage at the worst working conditions?

Or do we try to make the system work by setting up basic rules for the market, and instituting the first public schools, and busting up monopolies, and letting workers organize into unions?

We chose to act, and we rose together.

When the irrational exuberance of the Roaring Twenties came crashing down with the stock market, we had to decide: do we follow the call of leaders who would do nothing, or the call of a leader who, perhaps because of his physical paralysis, refused to accept political paralysis?

We chose to act � regulating the market, putting people back to work, expanding bargaining rights to include health care and a secure retirement � and together we rose.

When World War II required the most massive homefront mobilization in history and we needed every single American to lend a hand, we had to decide: Do we listen to the skeptics who told us it wasn�t possible to produce that many tanks and planes?

Or, did we build Roosevelt�s Arsenal of Democracy and grow our economy even further by providing our returning heroes with a chance to go to college and own their own home?

Again, we chose to act, and again, we rose together.

Today, at the beginning of this young century, we have to decide again. But this time, it�s your turn to choose.

Here in Galesburg, you know what this new challenge is. You�ve seen it.

You see it when you drive by the old Maytag plant around lunchtime and no one walks out anymore. I saw it during the campaign when I met the union guys who use to work at the plant and now wonder what they�re gonna do at 55-years-old without a pension or health care; when I met the man who�s son needs a new liver but doesn�t know if he can afford when the kid gets to the top of the transplant list.

It�s as if someone changed the rules in the middle of the game and no one bothered to tell these people. And, in reality, the rules have changed.

It started with technology and automation that rendered entire occupations obsolete �when was the last time anybody here stood in line for the bank teller instead of going to the ATM, or talked to a switchboard operator? Then companies like Maytag being able to pick up and move their factories to some Third World country where workers are a lot cheaper than they are in the U.S.

As Tom Friedman points out in his new book, The World Is Flat, over the last decade or so, these forces � technology and globalization � have combined like never before. So that while most of us have been paying attention to how much easier technology has made our lives � sending emails on blackberries, surfing the web on our cell phones, instant messaging with friends across the world � a quiet revolution has been breaking down barriers and connecting the world�s economies. Now, businesses not only have the ability to move jobs wherever there�s a factory, but wherever there�s an internet connection.

Countries like India and China realized this. They understood that now they need not just be a source of cheap labor or cheap exports. They can compete with us on a global scale. The one resource they still needed was a skilled, educated labor force. So they started schooling their kids earlier, longer, and with a greater emphasis on math, science, and technology, until their most talented students realized they don�t have to immigrate to America to have a decent life � they can stay right where they are.

The result? China is graduating four times the number of engineers that the United States is graduating. Not only are those Maytag employees competing with Chinese and Indonesian and Mexican workers, now you are too. Today, accounting firms are emailing your tax returns to workers in India who will figure them out and send them back as fast as any worker in Indiana could.

When you lose your luggage in a Boston airport, tracking it down may involve a call to an agent in Bangalore, who will find it by making a phone call to Baltimore. Even the Associated Press has outsourced some of their jobs to writers all over the world who can send in a story with the click of a mouse.

As British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said, in this new economy, �talent is 21st century wealth.� If you�ve got the skills, you�ve got the education, and you have the opportunity to upgrade and improve both, you�ll be able to compete and win anywhere. If not, the fall will be further and harder than ever before.

So what do we do about this? How does America find our way in this new, global economy? What will our place in history be?

Like so much of the American story, once again, we face a choice. Once again, there are those who believe that there isn�t much we can do about this as a nation. That the best idea is to give everyone one big refund on their government � divvy it up into individual portions, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, education, and so forth.

In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it � Social Darwinism, every man and woman for him or herself. It�s a tempting idea, because it doesn�t require much thought or ingenuity. It allows us to say to those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford � tough luck. It allows us to say to the Maytag workers who have lost their job � life isn�t fair. It let�s us say to the child born into poverty � pull yourself up by your bootstraps. And it is especially tempting because each of us believes that we will always be the winner in life�s lottery, that we will be Donald Trump, or at least that we won�t be the chump that he tells: �Your fired!�

But there a problem. It won�t work. It ignores our history. It ignores the fact that it has been government research and investment that made the railways and the internet possible. It has been the creation of a massive middle class, through decent wages and benefits and public schools � that has allowed all of us to prosper. Our economic dominance has depended on individual initiative and belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we�re all in it together and everybody�s got a shot at opportunity � that has produced our unrivaled political stability.

And so if we do nothing in the face of globalization, more people will continue to lose their health care. Fewer kids will be able to afford this diploma you�re about to receive.

More companies like United won�t be able to provide pensions for their employees. And those Maytag workers will be joined in the unemployment line by any worker whose skill can be bought and sold on the global market.

Today, I�m here to tell you what most of you already know. This isn�t us. This isn�t how our story ends � not in this country. America is a land of big dreamers and big hopes.

It is this hope that has sustained us through revolution and civil war, depression and world war, a struggle for civil and social rights and the brink of nuclear crisis. And it is because of our dreamers that we have emerged from each challenge more united, more prosperous, and more admired than ever before.

So let�s dream. Instead of doing nothing or simply defending 20th century solutions, let�s imagine what we can do to give every American a fighting chance in the 21st century.

What if we prepared every child in America with the education and skills they need to compete in this new economy? If we made sure college was affordable for everyone who wanted to go? If we walked up to those Maytag workers and told them that there old job wasn�t coming back, but that the new jobs will be there because of the serious job re-training and lifelong education that is waiting for them � the sorts of opportunities Knox has created with the strong future scholarship program?

What if no matter where you worked or how many times you switched jobs, you had health care and a pension that stayed with you always, so that each of us had the flexibility to move to a better job or start a new business?

And what if instead of cutting budgets for research and development and science, we fueled the genius and the innovation that will lead to the new jobs and new industries of the future?

Right now, all across America, there are amazing discoveries being made. If we supported these discoveries on a national level, if we committed ourselves to investing in these possibilities, just imagine what it could do for a town like Galesburg. Ten or twenty years down the road, that old Maytag plant could re-open its doors as an Ethanol refinery that turns corn into fuel.

Down the street, a biotechnology research lab could open that�s on the cusp of discovering a cure for cancer. And across the way, a new auto company could be busy churning out electric cars. The new jobs created would be filled by American workers trained with new skills and a world-class education.

None of this will come easy. Every one of us will have to work more, read more, train more, think more. We will have to slough off bad habits � like driving gas guzzlers that weaken our ecomony and feed our enemies abroad. Our kids will have to turn off the TV sets and put away the video games and start hitting the books. We will have to reform institutions, like our public schools, that were designed for an earlier time. Republicans will have to recognize our collective responsibilities, even as Democrats recognize that we have to do more than just defend the old programs.

It won�t be easy, but it can be done. It can be our future. We have the talent and the resources and the brainpower. But now we need the political will. We need a national commitment.

And we need you.

Now, no one can force you to meet these challenges. If you want, it will be pretty easy for you to leave here today and not give another thought to towns like Galesburg and the challenges they face. There is no community service requirement in the real world; no one�s forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and go chasing after the big house, and the nice suits, and all the other things that our money culture says you can buy.

But I hope you don�t. Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a poverty of ambition. It asks to little of yourself. You need to take up the challenges that we face as a nation and make them your own, not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, although you do have that obligation. Not because you have a debt to all of those who helped you get to where you are, although you do have that debt. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, although you do have that obligation. You need to take on the challenge because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because it�s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you will realize your true potential. And if we�re willing to share the risks and the rewards this new century offers, it will be a victory for each of you, and for every American.

You�re wondering how you�ll do this. The challenges are so big. And it�s seems so difficult for one person to make a difference.

But we know it can be done. Because where you�re sitting, in this very place, in this town, it�s happened before.

Nearly two centuries ago, before civil rights and voting rights, before Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, before all of that, America was stained with the sin of slavery. In the sweltering heat of southern plantations, men and women who looked like me would dream of the day they could escape the life of pain and servitude into which they were sold like cattle. And yet, year after year, as this moral cancer ate away at the American ideals of liberty and equality, the nation was silent.

But its people would not stay silent for long.

One by one, abolitionists emerged to tell their fellow Americans that this would not be our place in history. That this was not the America that had captured the imagination of so many around the world.

The resistance they met was fierce, and some paid with their lives. But they would not be deterred, and they soon spread out across the country to fight for their cause. One man from New York went west, all the way to the prairies of Illinois to start a colony.

And here in Galesburg, freedom found a home.

Here in Galesburg, the main depot for the Underground Railroad in Illinois, escaped slaves could freely roam the streets and take shelter in people�s homes. And when their masters or the police would come for them, the people of this town would help the escape north, some literally carrying them in their arms.

Think about the risks that involved � if they were caught abetting these fugitives, they could have been jailed or lynched. It would have been so easy for these simple towns people to just turn the other way; to go on living their lives in a private peace.

And yet, they carried them. Why?

Perhaps it is because they knew that they were all Americans; that they were all brothers and sisters; and in the end, their own salvation would be forever linked to the salvation of this land they called home.

The same reason that a century later, young men and women your age would take a Freedom Ride down south, to work for the Civil Rights movement. The same reason that black women across the south chose to walk instead of ride the bus after a long days work doing other people�s laundry, cleaning other people�s kitchens.

Today, on this day of possibility, we stand in the shadow of a lanky, raw-boned man with little formal education who once took the stage at Old Main and told the nation that if anyone did not believe the American principles of freedom and equality were timeless and all-inclusive, they should go rip that page out of the Declaration of Independence.

My hope for all of you is that you leave here today with the will to keep these principles alive in your own life and the life of this country. They will be tested by the challenges of this new century, and at times we may fail to live up to them. But know that you have it within your power to try. That generations who have come before you faced these same fears and uncertainties in their own time. And that though our labor, and God�s providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other�s burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that distant horizon, and a better day.

Thank you, and congratulations on your graduation.

Chicago's Newsweb Radio Group today said it will launch a new local radio station for "progressive talk" at 850 on the AM band.

WCPT, Chicago's Progressive Talk, will begin broadcasting Thursday at 8 a.m. with programming that will include talk shows, news on the hour and traffic and weather reports. Among the personalities with shows to air on the station are Jerry Springer, Al Franken, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Ed Schultz. WCPT will also air a show called Morning Sedition.

Several of WCPT's programs come from Air America Radio, a national talk radio network launched in March 2004 that sought to counter the popularity of conservative talk stations across the country.

Progressive talk radio "has grown dramatically and has become available in most of the top markets in the country," according to a statement by Newsweb. Chicago has been without such a station for more than a year, after a first attempt at Air America Radio on the Chicago dial closed in its first month.

Newsweb Radio Group, a division of Newsweb Corp., owns five AM and four FM stations in the Chicago area. Owned by entrepreneur Fred Eychaner, Newsweb also prints foreign-language and alternative newspapers, and in 2002 sold WPWR-TV/Channel 50 to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. for $425 million. Mr. Eychaner is a significant donor to Democratic causes, giving at least $1.1 million to groups working to defeat President Bush last fall.

From the Tenth Dems News by John Hmurovic

You know Congressman Mark Kirk is a pro-choice member of a strongly anti-choice political party. You know he is mostly pro-environment, even though his party has a long history of opposing environmental laws. You know he is a supporter of gun control, even though the majority in his party is in the pocket (holster) of the National Rifle Association.

You know this, because Mark Kirk wants you to know this. He sells himself to voters as a �Thoughtful, Independent Leader.� What he doesn�t want you to know, is the truth.

How did Mark Kirk vote when the Republican Party decided that the government, not a husband, should have the final say on the very personal decision on whether to take his wife off life-support? Go to his website and try to find the answer. It�s not there. Mark Kirk doesn�t want you to know that he voted as GOP Majority Leader Tom DeLay told him to vote.

What is Mark Kirk�s opinion on President Bush�s idea to privatize Social Security? No one knows. Go to his website. All you see are broad generalities that don�t address the key question of whether the system should be privatized. When asked directly about his views on the subject by Jeff Berkowitz, host of a cable interview program called Public Affairs, Kirk repeated the generalities posted on his website and said he was �going to reserve judgment, and keep listening to my District.�

Has he held a public forum on the issue so he could hear what his constituents have to say? Some Congressmen have held as many as a dozen public forums on the issue so they can �listen to their District.� Mark Kirk? Zero. Not one public forum on the issue.

Mark Kirk wants to hide on certain issues. He�ll talk forever about his stance on the environment, but he will do his best to avoid any discussion of Social Security, Terri Schiavo, or the fact that the right-wing has such a solid grip on the Republican Party that Mark Kirk is almost irrelevant. He votes against destroying the Alaska wilderness to drill for a limited supply of oil, it doesn�t matter. The Republican leadership of the House, which he helped put into place, brushed him aside and got what they wanted.

But Kirk won�t criticize his right-wing political party. Fellow Republican Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut said after the Terri Schiavo vote, "My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing... There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."

What did Mark Kirk say? Nothing. He voted with the Republican leadership to let the government intrude into our personal lives.

A group called Campaign for America�s Future is trying to compile a tally of how much support right-wing Texas Congressman DeLay has in Congress as accusations of unethical behavior pile up against him. They asked each congressman, �Do you believe that Tom DeLay is ethically fit to serve as Majority Leader?� Shays said no. Kirk? He didn�t take a stand.

Mark Kirk wants to hide because more often than not he votes with Tom DeLay than against him. Kirk�s Republican Party put DeLay in power. Kirk�s Republican Party is racking up the largest public debt in American history. Kirk�s Republican Party is trying to end Social Security. Kirk�s Republican Party is trying to force a radical Christian agenda on all Americans. No wonder he wants to keep some deep, dark secrets (his votes) from us.

The 2005 Consolidated Election provided one more piece of evidence that the Democratic Party is gaining in strength in the traditionally Republican North Shore, and in particular in the10th Congressional District. Most of the candidates on the ballot for the April 5th elections ran as Independents, or on non-partisan slates. But in the handful of races were candidates ran with a party affiliation, Democrats made significant gains.

The most significant were in Moraine and West Deerfield Townships in Lake County. For the first time in history, the local Democratic organizations fielded a slate of candidates in the township races. In Moraine Township, six of seven candidates running as Democrats won. In West Deerfield Township, four out of four were victorious.

The four West Deerfield Democratic candidates for trustee challenged four Republican incumbents, and received 55-percent of the vote. That was the same percentage that Democrat John Kerry received in West Deerfield Township in his bid for president last year.

In Moraine Township, there were four candidates on the ballot for supervisor, but Democrat Mari Barnes topped her nearest challenger by nearly a thousand votes. A Democrat also won the race for township clerk, and all four Democrats running for trustee were victorious. The only Democrat to lose was in a very close race for assessor. Not one of the Democratic candidates in Moraine was an incumbent.

Lauren Beth Gash, chair of the Moraine Township Democratic Organization as well as the Tenth Congressional District Democrats (Tenth Dems), said that the Democratic Party has been growing in strength in Moraine and West Deerfield Townships as well as in other 10th District townships along the lakeshore. John Kerry almost swept the five townships running from New Trier up to Waukegan in 2004. The only one he lost was Shields Township (Lake Forest, Lake Bluff, North Chicago). But even in that Republican stronghold, he received 49-percent of the vote.

�The District is changing,� Gash said. �Just seven years ago, Democrats didn�t even field a candidate for Congress. Now, no Republican candidate should expect a free pass. Democrats are enthusiastic, and determined to work hard to let voters know that the Democratic Party represents their interests and beliefs better than the Republicans do.� She said that as far back as she can remember, this was the most active campaign waged for township races. She said Tenth Dems supplied a number of volunteers to the township campaigns, and that the election results prove that Democrats are making progress at getting their message across.

West Deerfield Democratic Chair Susie Krasnow was in agreement. She pointed out that in November 2004, Democrats won the Lake County Coroner�s office, and control of the North Shore Sanitary District from Republican control, while not losing a single Democratic controlled office to the Republicans in the 10th District. This year, Democrats picked up township supervisor, clerk, and four trustee offices in Moraine, and four trustee offices in West Deerfield. Again, not a single Democratic incumbent lost. �The trend is obvious,� Krasnow said. �Little by little, step by step, voter by voter, people are beginning to agree that the Democratic Party is the best choice for our area.�

This article was written by Ellen Gill for the April edition of the Tenth Dems Newsletter.

As Mark Kirk throws money at the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, residents of the 10th District wonder what it will take to find Mark Kirk to discuss Social Security. Social Security is particularly important to 10th District residents, many of whom are retired or about to retire, or have retired parents while raising their own families. However, as of yet, our Congressman has held no public forums to discuss the issue, has made no response to calls for clarification of his position in Pioneer Press letters to the editor, and writes nothing of it on his new blog, which he proudly announced last month.

Kirk has issued only one statement on Social Security since his recent re-election. Vague and general, he has repeated that same statement on his congressional website and in responses to constituent letters.

George Bush, the leader of Kirk�s party, believes the issue so critical to his final term that he has, as the Dallas News reports, �been barnstorming the country, campaign-style� to push his plan. In a speech in Raleigh, Bush said, �I believe candidates are rewarded, not punished, for taking on tough issues.� So, where is Representative Kirk on this tough issue?

Other members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, have been very clear on their positions and have met with their constituents to discuss them. Florida Republican Clay Shaw not only met with constituents to discuss the issue, but came up with his own plan as an alternative to Bush�s which would not divert funds from the current system. Democrats James P. Moran of Virginia and Barbara Kennelly of Connecticut held a town hall meeting to discuss their opposition to Bush�s plan. In Illinois, Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama, and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky met at Loyola�s Water Tower Campus to discuss the idea of the social contract that has been so successfully implemented in the Social Security system and the problems with the Bush privatization plan. At the heavily attended meeting, Senator Obama described the system in terms of our values as a nation: �Our vision has been that we all have a stake in each other. [Social Security] is a simple yet profound program [and] without it there will be a few winners and a whole lot of losers."

So, what is Mark Kirk�s vision for our future? What are his values related to this issue? When will we find out? Will we have any input in his future vote? I tried to find answers on his website one last time and found a link to a page called �In the District.� I thought it would be a page chronicling district issues or his visits and events within the district. With hope of finding a future district event on Social Security, I clicked on the link and went to the page. I saw nothing but a description of the district�s boundaries. The good news is that at least he knows where we�re at when he finally chooses to speak to us.

Governo Rod Blagojevich announced today that $500,000 in Opportunity Returns funding is now available to establish new E-85 facilities at retail gasoline outlets in Illinois.

E-85 is a blend of 70 to 85 percent ethanol that can be used in Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) designed to burn E-85, unleaded gasoline, or any combination of the two fuels. E-85 fuel is a cleaner burning renewable fuel made from corn grown in Illinois and other Midwestern states.

This aggressive effort to promote the use of ethanol as a viable and efficient source of fuel in Illinois is part of the Governor�s Opportunity Returns initiative, his comprehensive, pro-active strategy to promote economic growth throughout the state.

�My administration is committed to working to reduce gas prices by supporting ethanol as a practical alternative. With soaring gas prices, ethanol is a cleaner burning and cheaper alternative that also creates jobs in Illinois. We will do all that we can to support ethanol, and to support higher ethanol blends such as E-85. This is an important step in the right direction,� said Gov. Blagojevich.

The Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity�s (DCEO) E-85 program will provide up to 50 percent of the total cost for converting an existing facility (maximum grant of $2,000 per site) to E-85 operation, or for the construction of a new refueling facility (maximum grant of up to $40,000 per facility). Individuals or companies operating retail gasoline facilities are strongly encouraged to apply.

�Gov. Blagojevich and I will continue supporting important initiatives that promote ethanol as a viable and environmentally friendly alternative to imported energy sources. E-85 helps our farmers, helps grow our economy and helps lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I know that this new program will help make E-85 more readily available across Illinois,� State Senator George Shadid (D-Pekin) said.

�Gov. Blagojevich and I understand that there are innovative ways, right here in Illinois, to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, while providing an important boost to our economy. This Opportunity Returns funding strongly demonstrates our commitment, today and tomorrow, to ethanol as a viable energy alternative,� State Representative Dan Reitz (D-Sparta) said.

�With this new program, we will be able to help local gas retailers support ethanol - something many of them want to do. Gas station operators will now be able to apply for assistance with the costs of the infrastructure they need to be able to offer E-85. Illinois currently has only about twenty E-85 stations available to the public, and we want to dramatically increase that number,� said DCEO Director Jack Lavin. �Depending on demand, we hope to have 100 stations in Illinois by the end of 2006.

There are currently more than four million FFVs on the road today nationwide, with approximately 100,000 of those in Illinois. Widely available models include the 5.3 liter Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra Pickup trucks, 3.0 liter Ford Taurus sedans and 4.0 liter Explorers, as well as 3.3 liter Chrysler Caravan Minivans. A complete list of models is available at www.e85fuel.com. A list of current E-85 retailers in Illinois is available at www.illinoisenergy.org or at www.illinoisgreenfleets.org.

The $500,000 in funding for the new E-85 Clean Energy Infrastructure Development Program is through a grant from the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation to DCEO.

�We are very pleased to support this program so that DCEO can assist fuel retailers to make E-85 more widely available to Illinois consumers. E-85 produces much less CO2 pollution, the leading global warming gas, and simultaneously produces very real economic development impacts across rural Illinois,� said Foundation Chairman Phil Novak.

Also in support of E-85, Gov. Blagojevich signed legislation in 2003 that eliminated the state sales tax for E-85 fuel, pricing it competitively with unleaded gasoline. E-85 fuel now typically runs 13 to 15 cents per gallon less than regular unleaded gasoline. E-85 helps reduce gasoline prices by reducing demand for gasoline, particularly when supplies are tight.

Earlier this year, Gov. Blagojevich also issued an Executive Order (# 7) requiring state employees to use E-85 fuel whenever practical. The State of Illinois operates one of the largest fleets of E-85 FFVs in the country. The new DCEO program will further expand the number of stations available to state employees, as well as the public, to use E-85.

Program guidelines are available through the DCEO website at www.commerce.state.il.us or by contacting 217/785.5082.

Gov. Blagojevich�s Opportunity Returns regional economic development strategy is the most aggressive, comprehensive approach to creating jobs in Illinois� history. Since a one-size-fits-all approach to economic development just doesn�t work, the Governor has divided the state into 10 regions � each with a regional team that is empowered and expected to rapidly respond to opportunities and challenges. Opportunity Returns is about tangible, specific actions to make each region more accessible, more marketable, more entrepreneurial and more attractive to businesses. It is about upgrading the skills of the local workforce, increasing the access to capital, opening new markets, improving infrastructure, and creating and retaining jobs. Opportunity Returns is about successfully partnering with companies and communities, both large and small, to help all of Illinois reach its economic potential.

Columnist Paul Krugman says in the New York Times that President Bush's budget proposal is "top-down class warfare in action."

In his column, Krugman points out that the Bush budget proposal punishes the needy while slipping in more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

"On one side," Krugman writes, "the budget calls for program cuts that are small change compared with the budget deficit, yet will harm hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable Americans. On the other side, it calls for making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, and for new tax breaks for the affluent in the form of tax-sheltered accounts and more liberal rules for deductions."

To read his column, go to the New York Times website.

U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston), Chief Deputy Whip, voiced her resounding opposition to President Bush�s Fiscal Year 2006 budget, adding that �millions of Americans should not stand for a President who puts tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of the needs of veterans, seniors, and the homeless.�

�It is an outrage that President Bush would put the interests of millionaires ahead of the well-being of veterans, seniors, the poor, and the working class. By limiting the tax cuts to the first $200,000 in income, there would be an extra $19.2 billion in revenues, enough to avoid cuts in veterans health care, education, and environmental cleanup,� Schakowsky said.

�President Bush has gone on the attack. The Bush budget is a weapon of mass destruction aimed squarely at true and proven programs that improve the quality of life for low and middle income Americans. This is a morally reprehensible budget that clearly demonstrates President Bush�s lack of compassion, misplaced priorities, and warped values,� Schakowsky added.

According to the Bush budget, discretionary, non-defense spending will be slashed by 1% (before adjusting for inflation), 150 programs will be reduced or eliminated, resulting in cuts of about $20 billion in 2006. For example, the Bush budget cuts:

Law enforcement grants to states by $1.3 billion.

The Lead Hazard Reduction program by $48 million (Illinois ranks first in the nation in the number of children identified as lead poisoned). $440 million in Safe and Drug-Free School grants.

$500 million in state education technology grants.

Housing for persons with disabilities from $238 million in 2005 to $120 million in 2006.

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS by $14 million. $225 from Even Start literacy program.

$250 million for railroad rehabilitation.

$100 million for land and water conservation grants.

In addition, Schakowsky added that the budget calls for a ten-year, $60 billion cut in Medicaid funding for the states. �This is going to jeopardize access to health care for pregnant women, children, and people with disabilities, as well as force drastic cuts in long-term care services at a time when people are losing coverage and costs are going up. This dramatic slash in funding will have a devastating impact on individuals� health and families� budgets,� she added.

The Bush Administration�s 2006 budget also doubles co-payments for prescription drugs for many veterans and adds a yearly payment of $250 for thousands of veterans wanting to enroll in the system. Generally, the budget adds more than $4 trillion to the deficit in the next 10 years, but that excludes the cost of the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and how the President plans to pay for his radical plan to privatize Social Security that would cut guaranteed benefits by almost 50 percent.

�It is clear where President Bush stands � he is willing to sacrifice the needs of the many for the benefit of the few. Congress must now show the courage to act where the President has failed to lead,� Schakowsky concluded.

Remarks of Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut on the floor of the U.S. Senate regarding the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to serve as Attorney General.

I would as an initial matter note that I know one of our colleagues came to the Floor yesterday and spoke some words of Spanish in support of the nomination. Some have urged me to speak Spanish, as well. Certainly, I take great pride in the fact that I have lived in a Spanish-speaking country. I have been a long-time member of the Senate subcommittee that concerns itself with Latin American affairs. I understand that this nomination is a matter of ethnic pride to many.

But to suggest that this nomination is only or even principally a matter of ethnic pride does a disservice to the Latino community. As far as I can tell, members of that community are no different than people throughout our country.

They want to know not only who you are, and what you are, but what you think and what you believe. They want to know if the person nominated as the Nation's chief law enforcement officer will uphold the rule of law.

The outcome of this nomination is at this hour not in doubt. It appears likely if not certain that Mr. Gonzales will be confirmed by the Senate as our country's next Attorney General.

So, what I am about to say is of little if any consequence to the ultimate outcome of this particular nomination.

Nevertheless, I have asked for time to participate in this debate because of the important questions that this nomination raises for the Senate and for our country. I want to thank the two leaders for allotting ample time for a full debate on those questions.

I will oppose this nomination. I say that with some regret. Like all or nearly all of my colleagues, I had very high hopes for this nomination. When Mr. Gonzales was nominated for this position several weeks ago, I don't know of a single Senator who at that time expressed an intention to vote against him. That is certainly the case with this Senator.

However, I also said at that time that I would reserve an ultimate decision until after the nomination was considered by the Judiciary Committee and put before the full Senate. In the interim, the Committee Chairman and Ranking Member have done a tremendous job of holding careful, thorough, and substantive hearings. They have given members of the Committee every opportunity to ask questions of the nominee. And they have given the nominee every opportunity to answer those questions.

I have long adhered to the practice of according presidents great deference in their nomination of term-limited appointees. Those who campaign for and win the highest office in the land deserve, in my view, to name their "team", if you will.

Accordingly, my standard of review for nominations such as this is different than it is for lifetime appointments. There are two basic questions that must be answered: first, does the nominee have the personal qualities required to discharge the duties of the office which he or she seeks to hold? And second, has the nominee demonstrated an understanding of the duties he or she will be required to discharge if confirmed?

Based on that standard of review, I have supported an overwhelming number of Cabinet nominees during nearly a quarter century of service in this body. That includes nominees of this President, including the current Attorney General.

It also includes nominees proposed by a president and opposed by a majority of members of my party -- including, in at least one instance, opposed by a majority of the Senate.

But I have, on rare occasions, opposed Cabinet nominees - including nominees supported by the majority of the members of the Senate and the majority of members of my own party.

There is no question in my mind that this nominee possesses a number of admirable personal qualities. He has demonstrated considerable intellectual ability. He is an experienced and accomplished attorney. He has by all indications been a responsible member of his profession. He has a demonstrated commitment to public service. And like our other colleagues, I have been deeply impressed by his proud family history.

But this nomination is not simply about Alberto Gonzales's impressive personal qualities.

If it were, he would be unanimously confirmed. What is at stake here is whether he has demonstrated to the Senate that he will discharge the duties of the office to which he has been nominated. Specifically, whether he will enforce the Constitution and laws of the United States, and uphold the values upon which those laws are based. Regrettably, and disturbingly, he has fallen short of meeting this most basic and fundamental standard.

I say that for two basic reasons:

One, because in a nation founded on the principle of human freedom and dignity, he has endorsed the position that torture is permissible;

And two, in a nation dedicated to the proposition that all are equal and none is above the law, he has suggested that the President of the United States, acting as Commander-in-Chief, has the right to act in violation of laws and treaties prohibiting torture - and may authorize subordinates to do the same.

I will briefly address each of these issues in turn.

The issue of torture is relatively straightforward. And it is this: Is it acceptable for the United States of America ever to effect or permit the torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of human beings?

The Constitution says no. The Eighth Amendment explicitly prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments".

The Geneva Conventions say no. They prohibit the torture and abuse of detainees and prisoners of war.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says no. Article 5 states: "No one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

The International Convention Against Torture also says no to torture. This document - signed by President Reagan, supported by former President Bush, approved by former Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Helms and a unanimous committee - says that "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture."

Lastly, the Army Field Manuel says no to torture, as well. This manual contains the knowledge, insight and wisdom gathered by American soldiers over decades of hard experience.

It says that "U.S. policy expressly prohibit[s] acts of violence or intimidation, including physical or mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to inhumane treatment as a means of or to aid interrogation."

So this document -- relied on by our soldiers in the theater of war to protect their lives and do their duty - expressly prohibits torture. Why? Because - to again quote the Army Field Manual - "The use of torture is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. . . . It also may place U.S. and allied personnel in enemy hands at greater risk."

Mr. President, from the very earliest days of our Republic, the right to be free from torture has been a fundamental value of our Nation.

Other values and rights have evolved or been won by the deprived and dispossessed: the emancipation of slaves, civil and voting rights for racial and ethnic minorities, equal rights for women, the right to privacy, just to name a few. But the right to be free from torture or similar treatment - this has never been in doubt, has never even been seriously debated in our nation. It has always been considered intrinsic to a nation such as ours -- founded as it is upon the belief that all people are endowed with certain inalienable rights.

Yet this nominee has in crucial respects stood against the overwhelming and unequivocal weight of precedent and principle. He has instead stood on the side of policies that are in direct conflict with the laws, treaties and military practices that have long guided our nation and its citizens.

Moreover, the record strongly suggests that he in fact helped shape those policies - to the great detriment of our Nation's moral standing in the world. Indeed, as the White House Counsel, he is one of the chief architects of those policies.

Let us review the record.

In January of 2002, Mr. Gonzales wrote a memorandum to the President regarding the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the conflict in Afghanistan. He concedes in the memo that "Since the Geneva Conventions were concluded in 1949, the United States has never denied their applicability to either U.S. or opposing forces engaged in armed conflict, despite several opportunities to do so." But then he argues that the war on terror presents a "new paradigm [that] renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners." He urged a blanket exclusion of the Afghanistan war from the Geneva Conventions.

This position was strenuously opposed by Secretary of State Powell. He pointed out that "It will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions and undermine the protections of the rule of law for our troops, both in this specific conflict and in general�. It will [also] undermine public support among critical allies, making military cooperation more difficult to sustain." Secretary Powell's legal advisor added that Mr. Gonzales's view that Geneva did not apply to Afghanistan was inconsistent with the plain language of the treaty, the unbroken practice of the US over the previous half-century, the practice of all other parties to the Conventions, and the terms of the UN Security Council resolution authorizing the intervention in Afghanistan.

Ultimately, in February 2002, the President ordered that all detainees captured by US forces be treated in "a manner consistent with" the Geneva Conventions.

But it has been pointed out that the treatment of detainees at places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo raise questions about whether this order was effective in actually according detainees the protections of the Conventions.

What is most troubling is that Mr. Gonzales argued for a view of the Geneva Conventions that was inconsistent with American law, American values, and America's self-interest.

Nor was this an isolated event. This Administration's policy on torture was largely established in August of 2002. At that time, a memorandum regarding standards of conduct of interrogations was prepared at Mr. Gonzales's request by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. This memorandum was accepted by the Administration as policy until December of 2004, when it was repudiated at least in part by the Justice Department on the eve of Mr. Gonzales's nomination hearing.

The memorandum is fifty pages long. I will not dwell on it. Others among our colleagues have already thoroughly discussed it. I will only touch on two aspects of it.

One is its novel and absurdly narrow definition of torture. The only conduct it recognizes as torture is that where the interrogator has the precise objective of inflicting "physical pain . . . equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Any other conduct would not, as defined by this document, constitute torture - and thus would be allowed.

Mr. President, this is a truly stunning and offensive reading of the law, not to mention plain English. It twists and contorts the meaning of the word "torture" - so much so that the word is drained of any meaning whatsoever.

It would allow all manner of mistreatment - including the acts of brutality and degradation committed by Americans against Iraqi's in places like Abu Ghraib Prison. Incredibly, it would even excuse the beatings, rapes, burnings, and deprivations of food and water perpetrated at the behest of Saddam Hussein himself.

A second aspect of this memorandum that deserves mention is its discussion of the powers of the President of the United States when acting as Commander-in-Chief. It says that the criminal prohibition against torture "does not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority." Under this reasoning, executive branch officials can escape prosecution for torture if "they were carrying out the President's Commander-in-Chief powers."

Here again, Mr. President, this legal reasoning is stunning in its implications.

It suggests that an American acting on behalf of the United States of America can commit heinous acts of torture without the slightest fear of prosecution. All he need do to avoid sanction is show that he was "just following orders." Whether or not the law prohibits torture is of no consequence. The President and anyone acting under his authority are in effect above the law.

This memorandum has been rightly condemned by legal experts. One is Harold Koh, a professor of at Yale Law School. He served in the Reagan Justice Department and the Clinton State Department. In testimony last month before the Judiciary Committee, he called the August 2002 memorandum "perhaps the most clearly erroneous legal opinion that I have ever read," and "a stain upon our law and our national reputation."

Yet, while condemned as beyond the pale of American law and American values, these ideas were accepted and even embraced by Mr. Gonzalez.

There is no evidence in the record that he even questioned them, much less disagreed with them. Apparently, he had them shared with the Defense Department.

At his confirmation hearing, Senator Leahy asked Mr. Gonzales whether he agreed with the memorandum's legal reasoning on the issue of torture. He replied: "I don't have a disagreement with its conclusions".

Senator Kohl asked if he agreed with Attorney General Ashcroft's statement that he does not believe in torture because it does not produce anything of value. Mr. Gonzales replied "I don't have a way of reaching a conclusion on that."

"[D]on't have a way of reaching a conclusion"? Mr. President, that is an astounding admission for someone seeking to become the nation's top law enforcement officer.

If he can't reach a conclusion about the illegality and the immorality of torture, what can he reach a conclusion about?

What other legal principles are open to similar legal evisceration and repeal?

What does it say about our Nation's commitment to the rule of law that this nominee will not say that torture is against the law?

What does it say about our Nation's commitment to equal justice under law that this nominee would have the President and his subordinates be above the law?

How do we explain this to the citizens of our country, to the citizens of other nations, and most especially to the citizens of tomorrow - to our young people who will inherit this country as we leave it to them? Will we tell them that "torture is wrong - unless the President orders it?"

Will we teach them that America stands for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - depending on who you are?

Mr. President, almost sixty years ago to this day, the first Allied forces liberated the condemned people of Auschwitz. On that day, the full horror of the Nazi genocide was laid bare, and all doubt about it was laid to rest.

Within weeks, my father was on a plane to Nuremberg, Germany. There, he began what would be perhaps the most formative experience of his professional life: serving as Executive Trial Counsel at the trials of Nazi war criminals.

At that time, there were loud calls against trying the Nazi leaders. Many called not for due process of law, but for summary executions.

Yet the United States, as a member of the Allied powers, insisted on the rule of law rather than the rule of the mob.

Even these most despicable and depraved human beings were given an opportunity to retain counsel and to testify in their own defense.

And in that moment in history, the world learned something very important about the United States of America.

It learned that this nation will not tailor its eternal principles to the conflict of the moment.

It learned that -- as far as the United States of America is concerned -- even the mightiest cannot escape the long arm of justice.

And it learned that our nation will recognize the words "I was just following orders" for what they are: a cowardly excuse, which has no place in a nation of free men and women.

Mr. President, as I said earlier, the outcome of this nomination is in little doubt at this hour. I do not expect that the nominee in question is paying attention to these proceedings. But I hope he will pay heed to the lessons of history. In his second State of the Union address, Lincoln said that, in giving or denying freedom to slaves, "We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth."

The issue then was how our nation treats the enslaved. The issue today is in some respects no less profound: how our nation treats its enemies and its captives, including those in places like Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay.

By treating them according to our standards -- not theirs - we feed the flame of liberty and justice that has rightly led our nation on its journey for these past two and a quarter centuries.

I yield the Floor.

A few days ago, the world watched as the seeds of democracy began to take root in Iraq. As a result of the sheer courage of the Iraqi people and the untold sacrifices of American soldiers, the success of the elections showed just how far people will go to achieve self-government and rule of law.

As Americans, we can take pride in the fact that this kind of courage has been inspired by our own struggle for freedom...by the tradition of democratic law secured by our forefathers and enshrined in our Constitution.

It's a tradition that says all men are created equal under the law - and that no one is above it.

That's why, even within the Executive Branch, there is an office dedicated to enforcing the laws of the land and applying them to people and Presidents alike.

In this sense, the Attorney General is not like the other Cabinet posts. Unlike the Secretary of State, who is the public face of the President's foreign policy, or the Secretary of Education, whose job it is to carry out the President's education policy, the Attorney General's job is not just to enforce the President's laws. It is to tell the President what the law is. The job is not simply to facilitate the President's power, it is to speak truth to that power as well.

The job is to protect and defend the laws and the freedoms for which so many have sacrificed so much.

The President is not the Attorney General's client - the people are. And so the true test of an Attorney General nominee is whether that person is ready to put the Constitution of the people before the political agenda of the President. As such, I cannot approach this nomination the same way I approached that of Secretary of State Rice or VA Secretary Nicholson or any other Cabinet position. The standard is simply higher.

I wanted to give Alberto Gonzales the benefit of the doubt when we began this process. His story is inspiring - especially for so many of us who have shared in achieving his American Dream. And I have no question that, as White House counsel, he has served his President and his country to the best of his ability. But, in my judgment, these positive qualities alone are not sufficient to warrant confirmation as the top law enforcement officer in the land.

I had hoped that during his hearings Judge Gonzales would ease my concerns about some of the legal advice he gave to the President. And I had hoped he would prove that he has the ability to distance himself from his role as the President's lawyer so that he could perform his new role as the people's lawyer.

Sadly, rather than full explanations during these hearings, I heard equivocation. Rather than independence, I heard an unyielding insistence on protecting the President's prerogative.

I did not hear Mr. Gonzales repudiate two and a half years of official U.S. policy which has defined torture so narrowly that only organ failure and death would qualify. A policy that he himself appears to have helped develop the dubious legal rationale for. Imagine that. If the entire world accepted the definition contained in the Department of Justice memos, we can only imagine what atrocities might befall our American POWs. How, in a world without such basic constraints would we feel about sending our sons and daughters to war? How, if we are willing to rationalize torture through legalisms and semantics, can we claim to our children, and the children of the world, that America is different, and represents a higher moral standard?

This policy isn't just a moral failure, it's a violation of half a century of international law. Yet while Mr. Gonzales' job was White House Counsel, he said nothing to the President.

He showed no ability to speak with responsible moral clarity then, and he's indicated that he still has no intention to speak such truths now. During his recent testimony, he refused to refute a conclusion of the torture memo which stated that the President has the power to override our laws when acting as Commander-in-Chief. Think about that -- the nation's top law enforcement officer telling its most powerful citizen that if the situation warrants, he can break the law from time to time.

The truth is, Mr. Gonzales has raised serious doubts about whether, given the choice between the Constitution and the President's political agenda, he would put our Constitution first. And that is why I simply cannot support his nomination for Attorney General.

I understand that Judge Gonzales will most likely be confirmed anyway, and I look forward to working together with him in that new role. But I also hope that once in office, he'll take the lessons of this debate to heart.

You know, before serving in this distinguished body, I had the privilege of teaching law for ten years at the University of Chicago. And among the brilliant minds to leave that institution for government service was a former Dean of the Law School named Edward Levi. A man of impeccable integrity who was committed to the rule of law before politics, Levi was chosen by President Ford to serve as Attorney General in the wake of Watergate. The President courageously chose to appoint him not because Dean Levi was a yes man, not because he was a loyal political soldier, but so that he could restore the public's confidence in a badly damaged Justice Department - so that he could restore the public's trust in the ability of our leaders to follow the law.

While he has raised serious doubts about his ability to follow this example, Judge Gonzales can still choose to restore our trust. He can still choose to put the Constitution first. I hope for our country's sake, he will. To start with, he should take these three steps upon assuming his new role:

1. He can immediately repudiate the terror memos and ensure that the Department of Defense is not using any of its recommendations to craft interrogation policy.

2. He can restore the credibility of his former position as Legal Counsel by appointing an independent-minded, universally respected lawyer to the post.

3. And he can provide Congress regular, detailed reports on his efforts to live up to the President's stated zero-tolerance policy toward torture.

Today, we are engaged in a deadly global struggle with those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms. If we are to win this struggle and spread those freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction. The Attorney General is one figure charged with doing this, but to do it well he must demonstrate a higher loyalty than to just the President. He must demonstrate a loyalty to the ideals that continue to inspire a nation, and hopefully, the world.

Last evening, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid delivered the Democratic response to the State of the Union Address on the need to confront the urgent challenges facing our nation at home and abroad. Below are their remarks as prepared for delivery:

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid:

�Good evening. I�m Harry Reid from Nevada, the new Democratic Leader in the United States Senate. Now that you�ve heard from the President, I appreciate your spending a few minutes with us as we give our views on how we can live up to the American promise.

�I was born and raised in the high desert of Nevada in a tiny town called Searchlight. My dad was a hard rock miner. My mom took in wash. I grew up around people of strong values - even if they rarely talked about them.

�They loved their country, worshiped God, never shunned hard work, and never asked for special favors. My life has been very different from what I imagined growing up, but no matter how far I�ve traveled, Searchlight is still the place I go back to and still the place I call home.

�A few weeks ago, I joined some friends of mine for a bite to eat at The Nugget � Searchlight�s only restaurant. We were sitting down in a booth, when a young boy, about ten years old, named Devon walked up to us.

�Carrying a skateboard under his arm, he said, �Senator Reid, when I grow up I want to be just like you.�

�Well, the truth is Devon could probably do a lot better. But the point still holds and it is this: no one ever had to tell young Devon to dream big dreams, no one ever had to teach him that America is a place of possibility.

�He knows those things because they are born deep in all Americans.

�In the coming year, I believe we can make sure America lives up to its legacy as a land of opportunity if the President is willing to join hands and build from the center.

�It�s important that we succeed. It�s time that America�s government lived by the same values as America�s families. It�s time we invested in America�s future and made sure our people have the skills to compete and thrive in a 21st century economy. That�s what Democrats believe. That�s where we stand. That�s what we�ll fight for.

�Too many of the President�s economic policies have left Americans and American companies struggling. And after we worked so hard to eliminate the deficit, his policies have added trillions to the debt - in effect, a �birth tax� of $36,000 on every child that is born.

�We Democrats have a different vision: Spurring research and development in new technologies to help create the jobs of the future. Rolling up our sleeves and fighting for today�s jobs by ending the special tax breaks that encourage big corporations to ship jobs overseas. A trade policy that enforces the rules of the road so that we play to win in the global marketplace instead of sitting by and getting played for fools.

�After World War II, through the Marshall Plan, we rebuilt Europe and they went from poverty to an economic powerhouse. Today, we need to invest in our nation�s future with a Marshall Plan for America � to build the infrastructure our economy needs to go � and grow. President Eisenhower did that in the 1950s with the interstate highways. National investment created the Internet in the 1970s. We need to build the next economy - and we need to start now.

�This 21st century economy holds great promise for our people. But unless we give all Americans the skills they need to succeed, countries like India and China will take good-paying jobs that should be ours. From early childhood education to better elementary and high schools to making college more affordable to training workers so they can get better jobs, Democrats believe every American should have a world-class education and the skills they need in a world-wide economy.

�Health care costs have shot up double-digits year after year of the Bush Administration and that�s costing us jobs, costing us our competitiveness, and costing families their peace of mind. We need to make health care and prescription drugs affordable for all so that our families and our small businesses will no longer have to shoulder this dead weight.

�Good, new jobs. World-class education. Affordable health care. These things matter. Unfortunately, much of what the President offered weren�t real answers. You know, today is Groundhog Day. And what we saw and heard tonight was a little like that movie, Groundhog Day. The same-old ideology that we�ve heard before � over and over again. We can do better.

�I want you to know that when we believe the President is on the right track, we won't let partisan interests get in the way of what�s good for the country. We will be first in line to work with him. But when he gets off track, we will be there to hold him accountable.

�And that�s why we so strongly disagree with the President�s plan to privatize Social Security. Let me share with you why I believe the President�s plan is so dangerous. There�s a lot we can do to improve American�s retirement security, but it�s wrong to replace the guaranteed benefit that Americans have earned with a guaranteed benefit cut of forty percent or more. Make no mistake, that�s exactly what President Bush is proposing.

�The Bush plan would take our already record high $4.3 trillion national debt and put us another $2 trillion in the red. That�s an immoral burden to place on the backs of the next generation.

�But maybe most of all, the Bush plan isn�t really Social Security reform.

�It�s more like Social Security roulette. Democrats are all for giving Americans more of a say and more choices when it comes to their retirement savings. But that doesn't mean taking Social Security�s guarantee and gambling with it. And that�s coming from a Senator who represents Las Vegas.

�Sometimes important questions like Social Security or the economy or education get reduced to dollars and cents or competing policies and political parties. But really, these are questions that are about old-fashioned moral values that don�t get talked about much in Washington, but matter so much to our country. Are we willing to do right by our parents and care for our children? Do we believe that big corporations with powerful lobbyists should get special favors and that the wealthiest should get special tax breaks? Or do we believe we are all God�s children and that each of us should get a fair shot and each of us deserves a say in our future? Will we be able to tell young people like Devon back in Searchlight that America is still the land of the open road and that you can travel that open road to the place of your choice?

�Even after the President�s speech, the American people are still asking these questions. You can be sure that Democrats will continue to offer real answers in the months ahead.

�Now, I�d like to turn things over to my colleague, the great leader of House Democrats, Nancy Pelosi.�

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi:

�Thank you, Senator Reid.

�Throughout our nation's history, hope and optimism have defined the American spirit. With pride and determination, every generation has passed on a stronger America than the one it inherited. Our greatest responsibility is to leave our children a world that is a safer and more secure place.

�As House Democratic Leader, I want to speak with you this evening about an issue of grave concern � the national security of our country.

�Any discussion of our national security must begin with recognition and respect for our men and women in uniform. Whether they are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, or delivering humanitarian aid to the victims of the tsunami in Asia, our troops have the gratitude of every American for their courage, their patriotism, and the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country.

�I have seen that sacrifice up close. I've met with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I've visited our wounded in military hospitals here and overseas. Our troops not only defend us, they inspire us. They remind us of our responsibility to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

�Because of the courage of our servicemen and women and the determination of the Iraqi people, Iraq's election on Sunday was a significant step toward Iraqis taking their future into their own hands. Now we must consider our future in Iraq.

�We all know that the United States cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue to be viewed as an occupying force. Neither should we slip out the back door, falsely declaring victory but leaving chaos.

�Despite the best efforts of our troops and their Iraqi counterparts, Iraq still faces a violent and persistent insurgency, and the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council said in January that Iraq has become a magnet for international terrorists.

�We have never heard a clear plan from this Administration for ending our presence in Iraq. And we did not hear one tonight. Democrats believe a credible plan to bring our troops home and stabilize Iraq must include three key elements.

�First, responsibility for Iraqi security must be transferred to the Iraqis as soon as possible. This action is long overdue. The top priority for the U.S. military for a long time now, should be training the Iraqi army. We must not be lulled into a false sense of confidence by the Administration's claim that a large number of security personnel have been trained. It simply hasn't happened, but it must.

�Second, Iraq's economic development must be accelerated. Congress has provided billions of dollars for reconstruction, but little of that money has been spent effectively to put Iraqis to work rebuilding their country. Infrastructure improvements in Iraq are more than just projects; they give Iraqis hope for a better future and a stake in achieving it. And they contribute to Iraqi stability.

�Third, regional diplomacy must be intensified. Diplomacy can lessen the political problems in Iraq, take pressure off of our troops, and deprive the insurgency of the fuel of anti-Americanism on which it thrives.

�If these three steps are taken, the next elections in Iraq, scheduled for December, can be held in a more secure atmosphere, with broader participation, and a much smaller American presence.

�Just as we must transfer greater responsibility to the Iraqi people for their own security, we must embrace a renewed commitment to our security here at home. It's been over three years since the attacks of September 11th. Our hopes and prayers will always be with the 9/11 families, who strengthen our resolve to win the war on terror. The pain and horror of that day will never be forgotten by any of us yet the gaps in our security exposed by those attacks remain.

�Despite the Administration's rhetoric, airline cargo still goes uninspected, shipping containers go unscreened, and our railroads and power plants are not secure. Police officers and firefighters across America have pleaded for the tools they need to prevent or respond to an attack, but the Administration still hasn't delivered for our first responders.

�The greatest threats to our homeland security are the tons of biological, chemical, and even nuclear materials that are unaccounted for or unguarded. The President says the right words about the threat, but he has failed to take action commensurate with it.

�We can and we must keep the world's most gruesome weapons out of the world's most dangerous hands. Nothing is more important to our homeland security, and indeed to the safety of the world.

�For three years, the President has failed to put together a comprehensive plan to protect America from terrorism, and we did not hear one tonight.

�As we strive to close the gaps in our security here at home, we must do more than show our strength as a nation, we must also show our greatness.

�We must extend the hand of friendship to our neighbors in Latin America. We must work to stop the genocide in Sudan. We must reinvigorate the Middle East peace process. And we must bring health and hope to people suffering from disease, devastation, and the fury of despair.

�We are called to do this and more by our faith and our common humanity, and also because these actions will enhance our national security.

�Democrats are committed to a strong national security that keeps America safe, that wins the war on terror, and that never again sends our troops into harm's way without the equipment they need.

�In our New Partnership for America's Future, House Democrats have made a commitment to guarantee a military second to none; to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction; to build strong diplomatic alliances; to collect timely and reliable intelligence to keep us safe at home; and to honor our veterans and their families by making sure they have the health care and benefits they have earned.

�For those returning from military service � our newest veterans � Democrats are calling for a G.I. Bill of Rights for the 21st Century to guarantee access to education, health care and the opportunity for good jobs.

�And we protect and defend the American people, we must also protect and defend our Constitution and the civil liberties contained therein. That is our oath of office.

�A strong and secure America was our parents' gift to us. We owe our children and our grandchildren nothing less.

�Thank you, good night, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.�

"In President Bush's Administration, we have seen a propensity to manufacture crises where none exist, and then turn to preordained ideas as the solutions to them." -- Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

Bush: "By the year 2042, the entire (Social Security) system would be exhausted and bankrupt."

FACT: Social Security Is Not in Crisis."Social Security is Financially Sound: According to the Social Security trustees report, the standard basis for analyzing Social Security, the program can pay all benefits through the year 2042, with no changes whatsoever. Even after 2042 the program would always be able to pay retirees a higher benefit (in today's dollars) than what current retirees receive... Social Security is more financially sound today than it has been throughout most of its 69-year history." [Center for Economic and Policy Research]

For more examples of how President Bush distorted the facts in his State of the Union address in an attempt to scare the American people into accepting his right-wing agenda, see the Democratic Action website.

U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston), Chief Deputy Whip and member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, today issued the following statement on President Bush�s State of the Union address:

�In his State of the Union address, President Bush will outline a radical agenda that undermines the security of Americans at home and abroad.

�Using fear as a tactic, as he did to gain support for an unnecessary war in Iraq, the President is scaring Americans with a non-existent crisis in Social Security in order to win support for a privatization plan that reduces benefits and creates more debt.

�The President is in desperate need of a fact checker. His repeated assertion that Social Security will be bankrupt is completely false. The Congressional Budget Office calculates that the program will pay 100% of benefits until 2052 and 78% after that, even if nothing is done. Democrats support modest adjustments to assure solvency until the end of the century.

�The reality is that the President�s privatization plan makes Social Security�s problems much worse, not better, by reducing benefits to future retirees by an average of $152,000 over 20 years, and by borrowing $15 trillion over the next forty years. The biggest losers are today�s young workers who will see a smaller check and a bigger debt.

�The President will speak in lofty terms about creating an �ownership society�, but for most people, that really means, �You�re on your own, Buddy!� Even as deficits and the national debt mount to record heights, the President will leave untouched his profligate tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, while calling for draconian budget cuts in education, health care, veterans� benefits and housing.

�While many Americans, especially the families of our soldiers, wait anxiously for word of their return, the President will speak euphorically about Sunday�s election in Iraq, as if it were a vindication of his decision to take us into a preemptive war. After the loss of over 1,400 young soldiers and $150 billion, most Americans think the war was not worth it. It is true that we have seen the courage of Iraqis and their determination to control their own destiny. Now it is time to end the occupation and bring our troops home, and help the Iraqis financially to rebuild their country.

�Americans who are hoping to hear the President tell them about a brighter future for their families and more security in the world will be deeply disappointed.�

The Real State of the Union: 2005

WEAKENING OUR NATION, AANDONING OUR NATION�S PROTECTORS

The tab for Bush�s Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is currently $277 Billion and counting. [Washington Post, 1/26/05]

Bush�s plans in Iraq call for troops to be in the Middle East for years. Armed Forces specialists plan on keeping 120,000 American soldiers deployed in Iraq until at least 2006. [Washington Post, 1/25/05]

The President says that he will honor our veterans. Meanwhile, according to The Washington Post, 300,000 veterans are still waiting for necessary health care treatment. [Washington Post, 10/3/04]

FAILING TO CREATE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL AMERICANS

To pay for Bush�s misguided economic agenda, the country�s debt has soared. Experts recently announced that Bush�s growing $8 trillion dollar debt translates to roughly $26,000 per person. [Treasury Department; www.house.gov/budget_democrats]

While advocating the need to create economic opportunity for all, President Bush has presided over an economic record that includes the loss of over a million jobs since he took office. [Bureau of Labor Statistics]

President Bush will hail his own commitment to creating opportunity for Americans, but the legacy of his first term is that 4.3 million more Americans are now in poverty. [Census Bureau, Current Population Survey]

Bush�s most recent budget passed by Congress fell $9.8 billion short of Bush�s commitment to reform America�s schools. Overall, the Republicans have fallen $27 billion short of the funding for local schools promised in the No Child Left Behind Act. [House Democratic Leader�s Office, 1/7/05]

ABANDONING OUR NATION�S HEALTH

The President�s repeated commitments to health care are simply more lip service. Rather than reducing the number of people without coverage during his first term, 5.2 million more people are uninsured today than in 2000. [Census Bureau, Current Population Survey]

Under Bush, consumers� medical bills grew 7.6 percent in 2003, the fastest growing area of health care spending. And meanwhile, Bush�s health care proposals do nothing to control soaring health care costs. [Pharma Marketletter, 1/12/05]

More than 130 million Americans breathe dirty, unhealthy air. Instead of working to change this, Bush�s �Clear Skies� legislation would protect polluters and undermine further progress. [Washington Post, 12/14/04; www.cleartheair.org]

SOURCE: Democratic National Committee at www.democrats.org

Amid confusion over President George W. Bush�s plan to privatize Social Security, today�s Wall Street Journal stripped away the political spin to provide some very basic answers to some very serious questions. Most notable was the paper�s answer to a question on private accounts.

SOCIAL SECURITY Q&A

"What would private accounts do to stabilize Social Security's finances?

"In the short run, they would cause a problem. Social Security depends on taxes paid by today's workers to pay today's retirees. If those taxes are diverted to private accounts, then the government has to find another way to cover those retirees' benefits. Mr. Bush proposes to borrow the money, perhaps $1 trillion or $2 trillion over 10 years.

"Over the long run, private accounts are a wash, at best, for the system. Diverting payroll taxes to private accounts would reduce the flow of tax money into the system in exchange for reducing government benefits when workers with private accounts retire." [Wall Street Journal, 2/1/05]

Gov. Rod Blagojevich today announced that the state, through a partnership with SBC Midwest, is providing more than 4,000 calling cards to deploying and deployed members of the Illinois National Guard serving the nation in the Global War on Terror. Brig. Gen. Randal E. Thomas, Adjutant General of the Illinois National Guard, began distributing the phone cards to Army Guard Commanders attending the Illinois National Guard Warrior Summit in Bloomington.

In the coming weeks, the cards will be distributed to guard units deployed or preparing to deploy in support of operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Currently, 3,500 Illinois men and women are mobilized.

"Thousands of Illinois men and women are making tremendous personal sacrifices to help our nation fight this war on terror. They have willingly answered their nation's call to service," said Gov. Blagojevich. "Providing these calling cards is one small way we can show them how much we appreciate their sacrifice and service. My hope is that the cards will make it easier for our brave Illinois citizen soldiers and airmen to stay in touch with friends, family and loved ones back home."

The cards have a minimum face value of 30 minutes. However, if a Digital Satellite Network line, sometimes available through the Department of Defense, is accessible, the card�s time can increase to 120 minutes or more. This varies depending upon the connection. Use of the cards is self-explanatory and is similar to Operation Uplink phone cards distributed through the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

"We are thankful to our friends, family members, the Illinois National Guard Soldiers and Airmen, military personnel and the more than 250 members of the SBC family who are currently serving our country both at home and overseas," said Joe Walkoviak, SBC president and CEO Midwest. "Supporting a program such as this is an important way to express our appreciation for their sacrifice."

"I want to thank Gov. Blagojevich for his support of our Guard men and women serving in harms way in the Global War on Terror," said Brig. Gen. Randal E. Thomas, Adjutant General of the Illinois National Guard. "I would also like to thank the Governor and Joe Walkoviak, president of SBC Midwest, for making these cards available to our troops. It means a lot to them to know that the people of Illinois care about them and the important work they are doing in the name of our nation."

Illinois Army Guard commanders from across the state attended the Warrior Summit, which began Friday and ends Sunday in Bloomington, to discuss various issues facing the Illinois Army National Guard in 2005 with senior Guard leaders.

Remarks of Senator Harry Reid (As Prepared for Delivery) Monday, January 31, 2005 National Press Club Washington, DC

Last Thanksgiving, I traveled to Bethesda Naval Hospital to visit with some of our wounded troops. I met one young Marine who had been involved in the battle of Fallujah. He had sustained severe leg injuries but his upper body was still strong and when I came to his bedside he grabbed me by the hand and pulled me in close. He looked me straight in the eye and said, "I'm counting on you."

The fact is, he's counting on all of us who have the honor of serving here in Washington. On behalf of all congressional Democrats, we will not let him down.

Let me be clear: there is no partisan split in our commitment to defending this nation. America stands united in waging the War on Terror. We Democrats simply believe we need a stronger strategy for winning this war.

We believe it is time that America had a national security policy that is as strong and brave and decent as the heroes who serve in uniform.

Unfortunately, that is not the national security policy we currently have under the Bush Administration. With his reelection �and with yesterday's elections in Iraq, � President Bush has a golden opportunity to change course. To use his State of the Union Address as a chance to come clean with the America people. To outline a stronger, clearer policy to succeed in Iraq, defend America from danger and to advance the security and liberty of people around the world.

President Bush needs to do much more to live up to his obligations as Commander-in-Chief in this new term. That starts with no longer sending our troops into battle without the weapons and equipment they need.

Because this Administration's policies have left our troops stretched too thin and shouldering too much of the burden, we need to add to our troop levels so that our fighting force has enough soldiers to do the job in both Iraq and in the War on Terror. That means increasing our Army and Marines by forty thousand troops over the next two years.

America will never be truly secure if we do not honor those we ask to serve.

President Bush must keep his promise to those that have served in the defense of freedom. All veterans should get the health care and prescription drugs they deserve. We should launch a 21st Century GI Bill that helps the soldiers of today succeed when they come home from war. And no longer should any veteran have to choose between a retirement check and a disability check. These men and women deserve better. They've earned it.

Our veterans also deserve a national security policy that keeps faith with their sacrifice. I think all of us appreciated the President's words in his Inaugural Address about spreading freedom and democracy. That has always been the Democratic vision of historic leaders like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy. But there is a gap between this President's words and his deeds.

There is a gap between saying we will "seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions" and an Administration that gives the National Endowment for Democracy only one-third of one percent of what we give millionaires in tax breaks.

There is a gap between saying we are a global leader and standing on the sidelines as new international institutions and alliances take shape without us.

There is a gap between saying to reformers that "the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors" and an Administration that stands by in virtual silence as Saudi dissidents disappear.

And nowhere is the gap between rhetoric and reality greater than in Iraq.

This month, the Defense Department gave up in the search for weapons of mass destruction and the CIA announced that any links between Saddam and al Qaeda before the war were flimsy at best. But now Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists. There are dozens of insurgent attacks every day. And the war has cost more than fourteen hundred U.S. soldiers their lives including soldiers and Marines from my home state of Nevada. It's resulted in over ten thousand soldiers being wounded. We owe it to those soldiers to start getting things right in Iraq.

On Sunday, millions of Iraqi citizens risked bloodshed in order to raise their ink-stained fingers in a powerful symbol of democracy. But we all know that these brave men and women will never be truly free until they can walk through their cities and towns without fear.

Yesterday's elections were a milestone, but on Wednesday night, the President needs to spell out a real and understandable plan for the unfinished work ahead: defeat the growing insurgency, rebuild Iraq, increase political participation by all parties, especially Iraq's moderates, and increase international involvement. Most of all, we need an exit strategy so that we know what victory is and how we can get there; so that we know what we need to do and so that we know when the job is done.

Iraq is clearly important, but there are so many bigger threats to our national security and this Administration needs to do a better job focusing on the big picture.

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but on President Bush's watch some of the most dangerous and despotic countries in the world have been developing nuclear weapons � and this Administration has just been standing by.

Iran's radical ayatollahs have been enriching uranium. But this Administration has let Europe take the lead on dealing with this problem.

North Korea has been producing enough nuclear material for as many as nine weapons and has been building missiles that could deliver a strike to the west coast of the United States. But this Administration has let China handle the negotiations.

It's time that America stood tall again as the real superpower that we are; time that we led the world on dealing with these terrible threats and building a durable peace instead of just hanging back and letting others show the way.

We should be ready to do whatever it takes to keep the world's most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the world's most dangerous regimes and evil terrorists. That includes our military options but it also includes sitting down at a table. As President Kennedy said when he confronted the nuclear threats of his generation, we must "never negotiate out of fear," but we must "never fear to negotiate."

Nearly three and a half years after 9-11, the War on Terror has been placed on the backburners while the Bush Administration spends its time and energy putting out fires in Iraq. President Bush said we would capture Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." But more than a thousand days later, this terrorist thug remains alive � and on the loose. We need to give our troops and our intelligence services all the resources they need to do their job and bring bin Laden to justice. That means adding two thousand more Special Forces troops and increasing the number of foreign language experts so that we can track down all the clues we have. It's long past time that President Bush returned his attention to the hunt for bin Laden and the War on Terror.

And while we redouble our efforts to wage the War on Terror abroad, we need to do much more to protect American citizens here at home. We need more and better equipped and better trained firefighters and police officers � the frontline troops of our homeland security. But this Administration's policies have been cutting back on them. We need to guard our ports and chemical plants and airplane cargo holds. But this Administration has chosen to look the other way. President Bush needs to do more to prevent attacks here at home � before it's too late.

But we all know that the best way to stop terrorists is to prevent the rise of terrorist groups before they unleash their wrath. As the President said in his Inaugural Address, there are regions of the world that are "prone to ideologies that feed hatred." Mr. President, these are often the places where people go hungry and live without hope.

When last month's tsunami destroyed so many families and communities, Americans responded as individuals and as families with a generosity of spirit that reminded the world of the deep goodness of our people. And while everyone agrees that President Bush's response took too long, I'm glad he finally stepped up to the plate with aid from our government for those that the tsunami had left in such dire straits. Those people who lost so much saw that in their moment of despair, the United States of America stood by them and cared about their future. And that will mean something to them � and to us � for years to come.

I hope President Bush learns a lesson from this. Because while December's tragedy caught our attention, there are everyday, slow-motion tsunamis of poverty and disease and mass killings engulfing villages and nations all around our world. These places may seem far away from us, but we learned on September 11th that even Manhattan is not an island, that we live on a tiny globe and that the world's problems have a way of reaching us here at home.

We need to dry up the breeding grounds that produce terrorism before the next generation of bin Ladens arise. Working to bring economic possibility and educational opportunity and basic medicine to places from South America to Western Africa to East Asia isn't something we do just because we're selfless. It is very much in America's long-term self-interest and vital to our national security.

In 1945, at the beginning of another presidential term in another time of war, Franklin Roosevelt � as tough a leader in war as America has ever had � spoke of the lessons we had learned as a nation. He said, "We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations far away." And he said "the only way to have a friend is to be one."

President Bush�America needs to start making more friends in this world. We certainly have enough enemies.

This isn't about some abstract theory of multilateralism. It's about that Marine I met at the Naval Hospital. Because he really is counting on us � on all of us in leadership in this country. He's counting on us to rebuild a military that President Bush has let become strained at the seams. He's counting on us to build an alliance of democracy and opportunity so that tomorrow's world is safer than today's. He's counting on us to provide him and his family with the medical care and benefits he's earned through his sacrifice. And he's counting on us to level with him about the challenges we face and the ways we can get past them. That's not too much for him to ask. That's the American promise. And, Mr. President, come Wednesday night, I believe that young Marine deserves no less.

I take very seriously the United States Senate's responsibility to provide advice and consent for the President's nominees. Generally, I believe that the President of the United States should be allowed to have the people he chooses in his cabinet to implement the policies he has been elected to put in place -- providing they are qualified to do the job. The vote should not be about the ideology of the nominee -- that decision is up to the President -- but rather about the nominee's ability to perform the job.

Condoleezza Rice certainly has the academic training and the professional credentials to be Secretary of State. She is bright, articulate, and well versed in diplomatic procedures. She works extremely hard, is dedicated to her job, and is very close to the President. In many respects, she was the natural choice to succeed Secretary Colin Powell.

But, Mr. President, I am afraid there is a showstopper here. As National Security Advisor, Ms. Rice has been one of the most public faces of this Administration's policy in Iraq. She has been the public face of this Administration's crusade to generate American support for an invasion. In her effort to do this, Ms. Rice has made many of the most categorical statements on Iraq, claiming that we had evidence that Saddam Hussein was pursuing weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam had ties to the al Qaeda terrorists, that we were threatened by a mushroom cloud from Iraq, or a little vial that Saddam might give to terrorists to poison us. Over and over again, Ms. Rice has used every shred of evidence she could find, even evidence that the CIA urged her to retract, in order to make the case that Iraq was a direct and immediate threat to the United States.

We now know that most of the intelligence information that led the President to conclude Iraq was an immediate threat to the United States was wrong. Not only have no weapons of mass destruction been found in Iraq, but no evidence has surfaced of any recent attempt by Saddam to develop these weapons. No ties with al Qaeda have come to light. Ironically, it now appears that since the US invasion, terrorists groups are enjoying a surge in recruitment and have even set up training camps in Iraq. Hatred of America's actions in Iraq has surged throughout the Muslim world and beyond. Condoleezza Rice is not solely responsible for this dangerous turn of events, but she is inextricably linked to this policy, and refuses to admit that any mistakes have been made by this Administration.

A hallmark of the Administration's Iraq policy has been a refusal to work with the international community. President Bush preferred to go it alone rather than be hampered by the constraints of the United Nations or make the concessions necessary to form a broad coalition. Ms. Rice was a prime spokesperson for this policy. She repeatedly justified the doctrine of preemption and defended the wisdom of going it alone, even if it meant losing the support of our closest allies. She was the public face of this policy of contempt for the role of diplomacy.

The Secretary of State is America's second most visible face to the world. If he or she is to be effective, the Secretary must be seen as truthful, forthright, and respectful of other nations. The hallmark of this Administration's foreign policy has been its willingness to distort information in the service of its political objectives, and its failure to tell the truth. It has viewed other nations as either naive or cowardly if they have disagreed with our policy. Ms. Rice has been the public face of this policy and this "modus operendi". Nothing could be more detrimental to her ability to be a successful Secretary of State.

Mr. President, I have said all along that this war is wrong, that the Administration's rationale for this war was faulty, and that the consequences of this war may be very detrimental to our national interest and our national security. Unfortunately, it looks like these observations are proving correct.

More than 1,370 American soldiers have died in this war, and over 10,000 have been wounded, many of them maimed for life. Countless thousands of Iraqis have died -- we will probably never know how many. Their country has been devastated, and as of now, it appears this Sunday's elections are unlikely to bring about any resolution of the internal strife. Civil war is a real possibility, and today it is hard to see how progress is going to be made toward the Administration's goal of stability in Iraq.

Condoleezza Rice has been a lead architect of our nation's failed foreign policy and of the war in Iraq. Therefore I believe she is severely handicapped in her ability to be America's chief diplomat and the chief architect of America's effort to resolve these problems. This Administration has not hesitated to play loose with the truth and show contempt for international opinion. These are not the tools of successful diplomacy, the primary responsibility of the Secretary of State.

Therefore, sadly, for the first time in my Senate career, I must cast my vote against a Cabinet-level nominee. I will vote no on the nomination of Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State.

U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) today announced that she would oppose the Bush Administration�s impending request for an additional $80 Billion to continue the war in Iraq.

Congress so far has approved more than $200 billion in supplemental, or additional, appropriations sought by the White House for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bulk of the funding, however, has been for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

�I will not vote to throw more good money after bad. At the same time that the Bush Administration has spent billions of dollars on Iraq, we have seen the insurgency spread, more brave American soldiers lose their lives and innocent Iraqis die in greater numbers. Our military campaign has brought neither security at home nor peace in Iraq. It�s time to bring our troops home,� Schakowsky said.

She concluded, �A political process has begun, admittedly fragile, and we should support that effort financially and diplomatically because the military solution has not accomplished neither stability nor security in Iraq. What we need today from President Bush is not another request for more money for war, but instead, a clear, rapid and orderly exit strategy from Iraq.�

U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) today released the following statement on U.S. soldiers deployed in Iraq:

�The time has come for the United States to withdraw our troops from the battlefield of a war that should never have been waged. There was no real justification for sending our brave young men a women to fight in Iraq, and there is even less reason to keep them there now to die in ever increasing numbers.

�Under false pretenses, the Bush Administration took our nation to war against a country that did not pose imminent threat to our security. In Iraq today, over 1,300 U.S. soldiers and an estimated 100,000 civilians are dead. This war is costing an average of $1.6 billion taxpayer dollars every week, while the mission remains vague, the troops overstretched and under-armored, friendly Iraqis chafe at our presence and unfriendly Iraqis bomb our convoys and enclaves. Neither democracy in Iraq nor security at home has been achieved. Instead, Iraq has become, in a gruesome self-fulfilling prophecy, the ground zero for terrorism that it was not when President Bush chose to invade.

�There are those who argue that the U.S. is obligated to �fix� Iraq now that we have broken it. Unfortunately, the Administration has left us with no good options whatsoever. The worst choice, however, would be to continue to do more of the same, and watch the body count grow. It is clear that for stability to replace chaos, a political and not a military resolution is required.

�A political process has begun, admittedly fragile, and it is time for the United States to leave. Once the January 30 elections are concluded, the new Iraqi government takes responsibility for forging its own path toward stability and democracy. The U.S. should provide financial and material assistance for that effort and encourage the international community to help.

�The results may not be what the President envisioned or anyone wanted. Some experts warn of civil war. Many worry for the Christian community and for the women. These are very real concerns that, sadly, weren�t even considered when the U.S. invaded, and even after �mission accomplished� was declared by President Bush. We should do what we can diplomatically to address vulnerable populations, yet, as long as U.S. forces are on the ground, a lasting peace and stable Iraq cannot be achieved. All of us care deeply about our brave soldiers who are doing the very best they can under near impossible conditions. It is time to bring them home.�

It was not a happy day for Democrats across America, but election day did bring some success in the 10th Congressional District of Illinois. Not only did John Kerry come out on top in this traditionally Republican area, but a number of other Democrats were elected to legislative and county offices.

John Kerry won 53% of the vote in the 10th district, which includes all of Northfield and Wheeling Townships in Cook County, as well as parts of Elk Grove, New Trier, and Palatine Townships. In Lake County, the district includes all of Moraine, Shields, Vernon, Waukegan, and West Deerfield Townships as well as parts of Libertyville and Warren Townships.

Kerry did best in Moraine Township (Highland Park, Highwood), where he won 70% of the vote. He did almost as well in Waukegan Township (Waukegan) with a 69% showing. Kerry also won in Vernon Township (Vernon Hills, Lincolnshire, Buffalo Grove) with 56%; in West Deerfield Township (Deerfield) with 55%; the 10th District portion of New Trier Township (Glencoe, Wilmette, Winnetka) with 54%; Northfield Township (Northbrook) 53%; and in Wheeling Township where he received just over 50% of the vote.

State Senator Susan Garrett (Lake Forest) was an easy winner, as were state representatives Julie Hamos (Evanston), Elaine Nekritz (Des Plaines), Karen May (Highland Park), Kathy Ryg (Vernon Hills), and Eddie Washington (Waukegan).

All Democratic incumbents won their countywide races for re-election: Cook County Clerk Dorothy Brown, County Recorder Eugene Moore, and State's Attorney Richard Devine, as well as Lake County Recorder Mary Ellen Vanderventer.

For the first time in Lake County, Democrats came away with two key victories on the county level. Dr. Richard Keller became the first Democrat elected as county coroner. And with the election of Dan Pierce to the North Shore Sanitary District Board, Democrats have a majority on that body for the first time.

Statewide, of course, the biggest Democratic victory was the election of Barack Obama to the U.S. Senate. He received 74% of the votes in the 10th District, including an incredible 87% in Moraine Township.

Just as it was nationwide, turnout in the 10th District was high....over 76%.

Once again, Mark Kirk received a grade of less than 50% from IPIRG, the Illinois Public Interest Research Group, one of the premier non-partisan public interest organizations that is active in this state.

Kirk voted for environmental and consumer legislation only 48% of the time, according to the 2004 IPIRG scorecard. In previous years, his score has been as low as 33%, and his lifetime score is 44%.

Lee Goodman, Kirk's Democratic opponent, is a staunch advocate for the environment and for consumer issues. He has been outspoken in promoting environmental protection. He has also worked to prosecute violators of consumer fraud laws.

"The voters in this district deserve someone who really works for people, not just someone who pretends to," said Goodman

Once again, Mark Kirk (Republican - 10th District, Illinois) missed a vote in Congress on an important issue of human rights. On Thursday, Kirk failed to vote on a proposal that would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over gay marriages. The Republican-sponsored bill was intended to keep the courts from upholding gay marriages performed in states where they are legal.

Lee Goodman, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Congress in the 10th District, said he was not surprised by Kirk's vote. "He skipped the vote on late-term abortions, too. When he could make a difference between upholding human rights and letting them be taken away, Kirk disappears. He seems to prefer not to vote on certain controversial issues."

Goodman indicated that if he had been in Congress he would have voted against the bill. "The whole effort the Republicans are making to stigmatize gays and turn them into second-class citizens is narrow-minded, mean-spirited, and wrong. The push for a Constitutional amendment barring gay marriage is despicable. You can't be for human rights for some people and against human rights for other people. I don't know why Kirk has so much trouble with an issue like this."

According to the Americans for Democratic Action, a self-described liberal organization, Mark Kirk (Republican - 10th Dist. IL) ranks among the most conservative representatives in Congress.

The votes Kirk cast with the conservative Republican majority earned him a 10% on the group's Liberal Quotient for the most recent legislative session. His ranking was identical to that of Henry Hyde and Phil Crane. Only two other members of the Illinois delegation were rated as more conservative than Kirk.

Among the votes that Kirk cast that placed him at such an extreme end of the political spectrum were his vote against allowing people to import prescription drugs from other countries, his vote for private school vouchers, and his vote against funding for affordable housing.

Lee Goodman, Kirk's Democratic opponent, said he wasn't surprised by Kirk's ranking. "He has been voting with the arch-conservatives, but telling people he is a moderate. The truth is in the votes, and the truth is, there is nothing moderate about this guy."

A crowd of nearly 200 gathered in Highland Park to show their support for the Tenth Congressional District Democrats and to hear State Senator Barack Obama.

It was the first fundraiser for Tenth Dems. Because the group has been in existence for just a few months, the size of the crowd was something of a surprise. Nice weather made it possible, however, for the crowd to step outside the Highland Park home of Tom & Donna Stone and mingle on the patio.

Numerous Democratic candidates were on hand, including Tenth Congressional District nominee Lee Goodman, and Eighth District candidate Melissa Bean. But the main attraction of the day was State Senator Barack Obama.

The crowd gathered outside to hear him speak for 15 minutes about the importance of the upcoming election, and the importance of remaining positive during the campaign. He said that voters are turned-off by the name-calling that some politicians engage in, and that this is too important a time in our history to have voters stay away from the polls.

After his remarks, St. Sen. Obama stayed to talk, and to pose for photos, with those present.

Lauren Beth Gash, the chair of the Tenth Congressional District Democrats, said she was very happy with the turnout and very appreciative of St. Sen. Obama for taking time from his busy schedule to help the Tenth Dems in their efforts to mobilze the Democratic vote in the fall election.

Though it is rare these days to hear common sense spoken by a Republican, that is exactly what happened recently when former Tenth District Congressman John Porter (R-Ill.) participated in a Brookings Institution Seminar on the huge budget deficits created by the Bush Administration.

Porter trash-talked the Administration's economic policies, but at least it was polite trash-talk.

"Now that Republicans are in power, deficits don't seem so important to us anymore," he said. "I think we are in denial. I suspect we will be in denial until after the election. The important question is what will be done in early 2005 to come to grips with this serious problem for America."

These defecits are largely created by the President's massive tax cuts for the wealthy, enthusiastically supported by Porter's successor, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-10, Ill.), and no tax revenue from more than two million people who have lost their jobs since the President took office and were removed from the tax rolls, much to their dismay. Not only did Kirk support the President's tax cuts, but he voiced no opposition to make them permanent, which is striking alarm in Porter.

"I represented one of the most affluent districts in America, and as I went through my district asking about tax cuts, people would say to me, 'I don't need my taxes cut. We need to solve the problems of this country. Don't talk about a tax cut.'" These lessons seem lost on Kirk who is losing touch with his district while Porter still has his hand on its pulse. Porter knows his former constituents are not stupid. Kirk is selling them short.

Unlike Kirk, who has voted down the line for all the Bush tax cuts, Porter would have taken a completely different approach in Congress.

"If I were still there, I would have voted no on the tax cuts. I think the messages from the White House may be good politics, but I don't think, frankly, they are good policy."

As to what can turn things around in the future, Porter bleakly said, "In my judgment, major reform of any type in this country is virtually impossible. We have entrenched, sophisticated, well-financed, politically savvy lobbies protecting most everything." This sounds like the thoughts of an independent, or words in a Democrat's stump speech. Hearing it come from a Republican is refreshingly odd.

Many voters in the Tenth Congressional District thought they were getting another Porter when they chose Mark Kirk. Instead they got a George Bush clone who supports much of the right-wing agenda. He has not learned much from his white-haired mentor, judging from his voting record.

If voters want someone like Porter in Congress, the better candidate is Democrat Lee Goodman. The two of them have more in common than Kirk and Porter.