Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Nicholas Senn High School, an excellent Chicago Public High School in my district that is celebrating its centennial year. With its mission to develop life-long learners who value diversity and social awareness, Nicholas Senn High School is teaching its students critical-thinking skills that allow them to be active, responsible, and productive citizens. For the past 100 years, Senn has been promoting and supporting education for local students, adapting to an ever changing, ever vibrant community. Today there are over 55 nationalities represented and 35 languages spoken at Senn High School. Senn High School recently became the first school in Chicago to offer a wall-to-wall International Baccalaureate (IB) program, aided by a unique partnership with Loyola University, which provides a robust academic curriculum throughout the school. Senn students can also participate in Senn Arts, a Fine and Performing Arts Magnet Program where creative Chicago students pursue artistic and academic excellence. The school ensures they are helping all members of the diverse community by offering additional programs in Special Education, ELL and Smaller Learning Community Programs. Over the past several years, Senn High School has seen major improvements under the leadership of Principal Susan Lofton. Senn was recently named among the city's top high schools and is a Level 1 school, the highest designation possible. Superior leadership, excellent teachers, the partnership with Loyola and strong community support all helped to make Senn the school it is today. Nicholas Senn High School is celebrating these achievements with a centennial celebration and a fundraiser to aid them in accomplishing their future goals on Saturday, October 5th, 2013. I want to congratulate Nicholas Senn High School on its success over the last 100 years and its lasting impact on the students of the City of Chicago. I am proud to have Nicholas Senn High School in my district and wish for its continued growth and success.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, well, today is a historic day in our country. Despite a Republican-led government shutdown that was completely unnecessary, we are celebrating the opening of the Affordable Care Act or, as I affectionately call it, ObamaCare. You know, after almost 100 years of fighting to expand universal access to health insurance coverage in the United States of America, in 2010, Congress finally passed, the President signed, and the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare as the law of the land. And starting today, Americans will be able to learn about the health plan choices and the financial assistance that is going to be available to them. An army of in-person assisters have been trained and stand ready to help Americans understand their options and enroll in coverage that best meets their needs. Americans can go to healthcare.gov, or in Illinois, where I'm from, getcoveredillinois.gov is up and running. Now I have heard from colleagues on the other side, all these scare things about how terrible ObamaCare is going to be for the country and for individuals. Let me read to you some constituent letters that I have received. This is from Gayle Weiss. She says: I was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis in 1997 and have consistently been denied affordable insurance since that time. I am so excited that our President has taken steps to help all Americans with access to health care. It's so fitting that tomorrow is my 59th birthday, and what a fantastic birthday gift. Finally, I won't have to worry about losing everything I've worked so hard for if, God forbid, I suffer a catastrophic health issue. No one should have to risk their future for something they have no control over, like illness. I heard from David Zoltan. He is 34 years old. This is what he writes: One week before Lehman Brothers went under, I was laid off from my job at the time and spent the next 2 years without health insurance. As a diabetic, the scariest thing in the world is to go without health insurance. Insulin averages around $100 to $120 per bottle, and I need approximately three bottles each of two kinds of insulin every month to live. I had to rely on my doctors to help me apply for any charity care program we could find or beg for the very medicines I needed to survive on a daily basis. Even so, I had to visit the hospital emergency room several times just to get insulin when my doctors couldn't get me free medication. ObamaCare gave me the preexisting condition plan pools as a lifeline until better solutions were available. ObamaCare has done so much for me, and I'm proud today to see the beginning of the largest expansion of health care in my lifetime. There will be problems to fix, but we are America. We will fix these problems. We will give the precious necessity of health security to our citizens. We will prevail. And then I also heard from Eva Strobeck. She said: I used to get insurance from my husband, who retires in January. I am one of those people for whom it is impossible to get insurance independently. I have three illnesses. ObamaCare makes it possible to get insurance at an affordable rate, which I cannot do without. My psychological medications alone cost about $5,000 per month. I can't survive without ObamaCare. It must be funded by Congress. So I want to say that this effort to defund something that will bring lifesaving health care to millions of Americans, about 30 million Americans who either have to go bankrupt, who have to pay exorbitant prices, or simply have to do without health insurance, who would be against that? Are there going to be glitches in the program? Of course there are. Medicare part D had news article after news article talking about the problems of this health benefit for the elderly. Let's get on with it and provide health care for all Americans starting today.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, we are just 2 days away from a Republican government shutdown. Now, you can try to deny it, but you're going to have to wear the jacket. The Fiscal Times says that it's going to cost $150 million a day to shut down the government. The Chicago Tribune says that the National Park Service would close all 401 national parks, and approximately half the government's civilian workforce--about 1.2 million employees--is expected to have furloughs. The Washington Post said that the Department of Veterans Affairs told congressional officials last Friday that all benefit checks it issues, including disability claims and pension payments, will be disrupted if a government shutdown lasts for a while. ABC News talks about the suspension of approval of applications for small business loans and about medical research being interrupted. The Wall Street Journal has a warning, too. It says that some Republicans think they are sure to hold seats in the House in 2014--no matter what happens--because of gerrymandering, but even those levees won't hold if there is a wave of revulsion against the GOP. Marginal seats still matter for controlling Congress. The kamikazes could end up ensuring the return of all-Democratic rule.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, we stand here today on the brink of a threatened shutdown of the Federal Government--bad enough--and worse, a refusal to pay the bills of the United States of America. These are completely unnecessary, Republican-manufactured crises. Hal Rogers, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said: A government shutdown is a political game in which everyone loses. Karl Rove said: A shutdown now would have much worse fallout than in 1995. It is an ill-conceived tactic, and Republicans should reject it. In a moment of clarity, Senator Mike Lee, one of the Senators holding up the bill in the Senate, said: Shutdowns are bad; shutdowns are not worth it. This law, ObamaCare, is not worth causing a shutdown over. This is former-Senator Judd Gregg: A default would lead to some level of chaos in the debt markets, which would lead to a significant contraction in economic activity, which would lead to job losses, which would lead to higher spending by the Federal Government and lower tax revenues, which would lead to more debt. Perhaps most important to my Republican colleagues, this is from The Wall Street Journal: Some Republicans think they are sure to hold the House in 2014. The Kamikazes could end up ensuring the return of an all-Democratic rule.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 462, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend and hero, Dr. Quentin Young, and to wish him a very happy 90th birthday. Quentin Young is the most cheerful, indefatigable, self-confident, unrelenting and optimistic warrior for justice that I have ever known. He is a tireless activist for health care justice, social justice, and equality. My physician (until he retired without my permission) and friend, Quentin has been the nationally recognized, erudite and silver-tongued spokesperson and irrepressible cheerleader for a single-payer national health care system for the last many decades. He coined the phrase'' Everybody in, Nobody out.'' Literally ``walking the walk'', Quentin Young walked the state of Illinois advocating for universal health care with now Governor Pat Quinn. He was doctor, friend and advisor to Mayor Harold Washington, and personal physician to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during his visits to Chicago. Quentin never missed a chance to weigh in on what is now known as Obamacare. Dr. Young is Chairman of Health and Medicine Policy Research Group, a group that he founded in 1980 to promote social justice and challenge inequities in health and health care. He is also the national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program. He served as chairman for the Department of Internal Medicine at Cook County Hospital in Chicago during the 1970's and early 1980's, where he established the Department of Occupational Medicine. In 1998, Dr. Young served as President of the American Public Health Association, and in 1997 he was inducted as a Master of the American College of Physicians. In 2010, Dr. Young was appointed by Illinois Governor Pat Quinn as the Illinois' Public Health Advocate. A renaissance man, Quentin Young is a great supporter of the arts and hosted his own radio show on WBEZ--Chicago area's PBS station. I am honored to call him a treasured friend and to be among the legions of people, young and old, who have relied on him as a mentor and for whom he is a leader and example of how to live a meaningful and spirited life. His work is making the world a healthier and better place. Happy Birthday, Dr. Quentin Young.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I think each one of us 435 has to ask ourselves, Is this really what we were sent here to do, to take food out of the mouths of hungry people, nearly half of them children? That's what's at stake this week when we are asked to vote on legislation that would cut $39 billion from one of our Nation's most successful and important programs, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP. It used to be called food stamps. As a Jew, we just came through the Jewish holidays, and we talked about what it means to be a human being in this world, in this country. Every major religion in this world and represented in this House teaches that you feed the hungry. Not as charity, but as a mandate, because that's what it is to be a human being in our world. All the religions have written letters and implored us not to do this. I participated three times in the congressional food stamp challenge in which we eat on $31.50 for an entire week. I'm not complaining about it because I knew it was just a week and it would end, but that's the average SNAP benefit. You know what? You can get the calories. That's pretty easy if you're lucky enough to live near a grocery store and not in a food desert. The reality for 48 million people is that you can get the calories, but it's really hard to get the nutrition. By the time you get to the fruits and vegetables, which are quite expensive, it's hard to do it. It's not comfortable to rely on SNAP benefits, and many people line up at the end of the month at food pantries that are everywhere in this country, including some of the richest districts. But the SNAP program, which has a bipartisan history, is the last line of defense between 48 million Americans and chronic hunger. The House already voted down a farm bill that included $20 billion in SNAP cuts, and it would have taken benefits away from up to a million children and would have prevented 200,000 hungry children from getting the school lunches that they rely on so much. Now this bill is back but on steroids. In addition to all of the devastating cuts that have been proposed, those that were rejected earlier, the new bill would prevent any able-bodied adult from getting more than 3 months of SNAP benefits during a 3-year period, even if they're unable to find work. Up to 170,000 of those who are veterans who served our country would be denied. This is at a time when unemployment among low-income Americans is over 20 percent and the average time of unemployment is about 9 months. Those numbers don't add up. It means that passage of this bill could nearly starve those looking for work, and no one can deny that fact. I know how SNAP benefits my constituents, and I know what would happen if those benefits were lost. I've attended several events at food pantries and community centers, and each time I've heard resounding support for SNAP. In just one day, I received 242 postcards from my constituents urging me to oppose these dangerous cuts to the SNAP program. They have my vote, and I'm imploring my colleagues that it should have the vote of every Member of this body to reject those cuts. A constituent who previously wrote to my office summed up her thoughts about the importance of funding the SNAP program this way. Here's what she said: Hungry thoughts every waking day are my constant companion here in the supposedly wealthiest country on Earth. Please have compassion for your low-income and fixed-income constituents who are loyal, patriotic Americans and who are in dire need of nutritious and affordable food. A former SNAP beneficiary, a woman named Dresden Shumaker, described the program as a trampoline rather than a safety net. Because of SNAP, she was able to make ends meet for her young family during a period of time of great need. Her story is similar to most SNAP beneficiaries who no longer need food assistance within one year of receiving benefits. I'm begging my colleagues, please, don't support these cuts. Let's be the value-driven country that we are and vote ``no'' to the $40 billion cut to SNAP.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 301, legislation to provide for the establishment of the Special Envoy to Promote Religious Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia. I want to thank my colleagues Congressman Wolf and Congresswoman Eshoo for introducing this important legislation, which I am proud to cosponsor. Ethno-religious minorities face serious threats in many countries in the Middle East, and it is critical that U.S. policy is sensitive to the needs and concerns of those endangered communities. Years of warfare, as well as specific persecution and targeting minority groups, has taken a serious toll on once-vibrant communities. While there were once over 1.5 million Christians in Iraq, today there are less than 400,000. In October 2010, an attack on the Our Lady of Salvation Assyrian Catholic Church in Baghdad left more than 50 clergy, worshipers and police dead. This brutal massacre, just one of many in recent years, drew international outrage and condemnation. We need a clear strategy for the protection of targeted minority communities. My district in the Chicagoland area has a large and vibrant Assyrian population. In recent years, they have been extremely active in calling for greater attention to the ongoing persecution and targeting of their brothers and sisters in the Middle East, including a large march in Chicago in the wake of the 2010 Baghdad massacre. I am proud to work with them on this issue and to push to see H.R. 301 enacted into law. Today's legislation will ensure that this serious issue is given the high-level attention it deserves within the State Department. A Special Envoy to Promote Religious Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia will be a voice for persecuted communities, ensuring that U.S. policy is responsive to their needs. It is a critical step toward protecting these ancient and vibrant communities, and toward ensuring a peaceful and secure future for all residents of the region. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I'll tell you that I have three times now done the SNAP challenge, or the food stamp challenge. The average SNAP benefit is now $4.50 a day. Almost everyone on the SNAP program is on there for less than a year. It has been described to me by a former SNAP recipient as a trampoline. Nobody wants to do it, and they certainly don't want to line up at a food pantry, and those cupboards are really having a problem being filled. It is hard to do. You can get the calories, but getting the nutrition and the health that you need from the food, that is really hard to do. People are reluctant to apply for these benefits. I wish they weren't, but there's still some stigma attached to that. I want to encourage people, by the way, that if they are eligible, they should get that for the sake of their children and their own health. States are struggling right now to meet their Medicaid budgets because there are so many people who are not getting health care through their employer or can't afford it on their own, so they are turning to State and local governments. We're finding that those governments are having to decide about fixing the roads, hiring teachers, or being able to provide these kinds of benefits. The same kinds of decisions that individual poor people are having to make, governments are having to make right now. But if only they were paid a decent wage for all the hours that they're willing to put in to get up early and get on that bus. Let me just tell you that I went into McDonald's with some of the workers. They had six things that they were asking for. Listen to the modest requests: Stop requiring employees to pay out of pocket if their cash registers are short; Two, show respect to your employees--less shouting and insulting language; Three, air-conditioning in the kitchen; Four, permit employees to drink water when the kitchen gets too hot. That one threw me for a big loop. They, said, ``No, they're saying, `Get back to work. You can't have a drink of water.' '' They put it on paper. It's not made up; Five, give raises and provide living wages; Listen to this one: stop requiring employees to pay out of pocket for food that is returned by customers. The whole event was very peaceful. No one at McDonald's was there to accept it, so they left these demands on the counter. There is one other little point I want to make. This was during the week that we were commemorating the 50th anniversary of the march for jobs and freedom, the March on Washington. The march sought to ``give all Americans a decent standard of living,'' and called for a minimum wage of $2 an hour. If you adjust that $2-an-hour request from 1963, that would equal $15.26 an hour, which is just about what the workers are asking for right now. The least that we could do here in this Congress is raise the minimum wage in this country, which hasn't been raised for a long time. You probably have that number. I don't remember how long it's been. A $7.25-an-hour minimum wage in this country just doesn't make it. I also believe we need to do more to guarantee workers the right to organize. I believe that organized labor helped to deliver us the middle class, and I think that workers organized will be able to rejuvenate our middle class and make these just and reasonable demands a reality.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Representative Pocan, for leading us in this Special Order that really talks about so many Americans who are paid poverty wages, people who simply cannot afford to support themselves or their families on the kinds of wages that they are paid, and the role of the Progressive Caucus in helping them to highlight that. So, on August 29, I was proud at 7 in the morning to arrive at the Rock-n-Roll McDonald's in downtown Chicago. It's one of the most profitable McDonald's, certainly, in our area. I saw a growing crowd of people wearing T-shirts, saying, Strike for 15, and signs that said, We are worth more. In Illinois, the minimum wage is $8.25, so some of them were chanting, We can't survive on $8.25, and they were engaged in this 1-day strike, the demand being $15 an hour and the right to join a union, to form a union. $15 an hour to work at McDonald's? If you were to work at McDonald's for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year--and of course the average employee there works about 24 hours a week--you would at minimum wage make the lavish salary of $31,000 a year, which starts heading you toward the middle class, but it's certainly not a huge salary. Compare that with the CEO of McDonald's, a man named Donald Thompson, whose pay package last year in 2012 was $13.7 million for the year. If you divide that out, he makes an hourly wage of $6,611, and he earns more in the first 2 hours of work on the first day of the year than the workers I was standing with make all year long. Now, these weren't kids. I was out there with some people who have worked at McDonald's for 10 years, 15 years. One gentleman was still making $8.50 an hour. He had climbed up from the minimum wage to $8.50 an hour. Unless you think that McDonald's isn't thinking about its workers, they actually put out a book, a little book, in conjunction with Visa, called ``Practical Money Skills,'' which is going to help their workers figure out how to budget. They have a budget that lists income from a worker's first job and his second job, admitting that you certainly can't plan to work at McDonald's and live on that, so you have to have a second job--so the first job and second job--all totaling $2,060 for the month. Then they have recommended monthly expenses to help their workers budget, including $600 a month for housing. Now, I don't know about Madison, Wisconsin, or anywhere else, but in Chicago, unless you live with somebody--or with maybe a couple of somebodies--$600 a month for two jobs and budgeting that way is not going to get you a decent place to live. Remarkably, they budget $20 per month for health insurance, and that exists only in some sort of fantasy world. These are workers who often turn to government assistance just to make ends meet. These are the people who have often been demonized by our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle for going for SNAP programs, maybe for housing assistance, for Medicaid. Lots of wealthy Americans and even some of our colleagues suggest we ought to test them for drug use or accuse them of being lazy; but I posit today that the real welfare kings are those fast-food giants and all those poverty- wage employers who refuse to pay a livable wage, a living wage. We, the taxpayers--all the rest of the taxpayers--subsidize them because they don't pay a living wage, so their employees, who are often working their tails off, often have to come to the government for help. I would argue that it's the Walmarts and the McDonald's that really depend on these welfare programs and that, if you want to divide the world into takers and makers, those companies and those CEOs are the real takers. If I have time, I want to give a couple more facts. This hasn't always been true in America, these poverty wages. Between 1948 and 1973, the productivity of U.S. workers rose 96.8 percent, and wages rose 93.7 percent. They went up together. Workers benefited from increases in productivity, and that's true of the wages of the managers and bosses and CEOs as well. Wages went up. Between 1973 and 2011, productivity rose 80.1 percent, but wages rose only 4.2 percent. So you saw that, even though productivity went up, wages stayed essentially flat. Median household income today, adjusted for inflation, is at 1989 levels, and it's not coincidental that during that same time union membership dropped from about one-third of the private sector workforce to about 6.5 percent today; nor is it coincidental that almost all the growth in income--and, yes, we are richer today per capita than ever before. We are at the richest point in our country, but that growth in income has gone, really, especially to the top .1 percent, to the very richest Americans. All of that growth in income has gone to the top. So I think this is not just bad for the workers that we were out with this summer. This is really bad for our economy. If we want to have a robust middle class, where people can go out and buy things and create demand and, thus, create jobs, they would be the real makers. They would be the people who could revive our economy. I think that the essentials here are a living wage and the rights of workers to be able to collectively bargain so that they can defend themselves together, represent themselves together and get a decent middle class life in this richest country in the world, which is at its very richest stage right now.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. It's like flossing and praying, and that's about it.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the patience and understanding, just coming from a classified hearing. I want to first thank the chairman and his staff, as well as committee Democratic staff, for working so hard and so diligently and collaboratively to come to an agreement on legislation that will help guide American job and economic growth. There is a strong incentive to invest in America, which remains the best place on Earth to find talented, motivated employees who are the core of the middle class. My home State of Illinois ranks number one in the Midwest in terms of foreign direct investment, with nearly 1,600 foreign-based firms employing more than 300,000 Illinois residents. In attracting the investment, Illinois has showcased its world-class transportation infrastructure, its diversified economy, its productive workforce, and its cultural diversity and attractions. It has also maintained its strong labor, health, and environmental standards that helped build the middle class, which I believe is the key to successful foreign direct investment. Some companies are working to respect the rights of workers as they invest in the United States. On Friday, it was announced that Volkswagen is working collaboratively with the United Auto Workers to unionize its Chattanooga, Tennessee, plant. That will help to ensure that the best interests of American workers are a major consideration at the plant and the company as it continues its investment in the United States. That being said, it is important that the study authorized in this legislation examine both the benefits and the costs of foreign direct investment. Doing so will allow us to determine the ways to drive investment that maintains high labor, health, environmental, and national security standards. And on that subject, I'd like to enter into a colloquy on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Terry. While I will not oppose this amendment, I must express my reservations. Mr. Chairman, you worked with me in a very collegial and bipartisan manner to craft a bipartisan bill. H.R. 2052 is a good product. Now we have before us an amendment that makes three changes that could be perceived to weaken important provisions of the bill. I have concerns about each of them, but I would like to focus on the elimination of cost-benefit language regarding the bill's required review of the current economic impact of foreign direct investment. During our negotiations, I suggested that language because I believed that we needed to ensure that the review be balanced, and you agreed. In addition, some of the language in the findings and in the sense of Congress could be read as if there are only benefits of FDI, and we wanted to be evenhanded. While I do believe that there are benefits to FDI, there are also costs that must be considered. Regardless of the amendment before us now, can you assure me that the bill's requirement of a review of the current economic impact of foreign direct investment required under this bill will include a review of both the benefits and costs of foreign direct investment?

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you so much. Reclaiming my time, if I could just say, I will not oppose the amendment, but I do expect to work with you to ensure that the review, should this bill become law, is balanced and to ensure that any report of this committee on H.R. 2052 include the clarification that you just made.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, last year I met with a fourth grade constituent named Lily McSheffery. Lily was concerned about the impact of oil and gas drilling on sources of drinking water, and she was determined to do something about it. She urged me to introduce a law that would protect consumers from contamination associated with drilling operations. Today, I will introduce the Safe Hydration is an American Right in Energy Development, or SHARED, Act. The bill would require testing of water sources near hydraulic fracturing operations and the public disclosure of the results of that testing. The SHARED Act would improve the lives of people all over this country, making sure Lily and future generations of kids have access to safe, clean water. I am inspired by Lily's dedication to this issue, and I urge my colleagues to join as cosponsors of the SHARED Act.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Hedy Ratner and Carol Dougal, the founders of Women's Business Development Center (WBDC), for their exemplary leadership in supporting women's entrepreneurship. As Hedy and Carol step down from their role as co- presidents of the WBDC, let us recognize the work that these two remarkable women have done for more than 25 years to empower other women to start, improve and expand their small businesses. In 1986, Hedy Ratner and Carol Dougal created the Women's Business Development Center to address the lack of support for women in the business world. Since then, Hedy and Carol have worked tirelessly to accelerate the growth of women-owned businesses and microenterprise ownership, increase the economic impact of women business owners on families and communities, build awareness of business ownership as a path to economic self-sufficiency, and help stimulate policy and system changes to empower women in the economy. Today, the positive impact of the WBDC is clear, and the Center continues to be a leader in expanding opportunities for women. Over the years, the WBDC has helped more than 66,000 women in the greater Chicago area in their entrepreneurial efforts. Its success has spurred the creation of 14 other centers in 6 states. The oldest and largest women's business assistance center in the country, the WBDC is constantly developing and implementing new approaches to help potential and current women business owners. The Center and its outstanding staff give women the tools, the needed support and the confidence to know that they can become successful entrepreneurs. Hedy and Carol are recognized leaders who have advised business groups and public officials at all levels about ways to help women improve their families' well-being and our nation by creating new business opportunities. I am one of many who have been fortunate enough to receive their advice on ways to improve federal contracting and lending policies and to learn about the barriers that must be torn down so that more women can enter the realm of business ownership. I congratulate Hedy and Carol on the extraordinary contributions they have made through the Women's Business Development Center. Although they are leaving their posts as co-presidents of WBDC, I know that they will remain leaders in advocating for women-owned businesses in Chicago and nationwide. I look forward to watching their next steps toward helping women business owners successfully achieve economic independence through entrepreneurship.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize one of my constituents, Transportation Security Officer Jacob Neal, who saved a life at Chicago O'Hare International Airport with the help of two other TSA officials earlier this month. When TSO Marvin Jackson noticed that a passenger had collapsed and lost consciousness, he quickly placed a call to his supervisor, Jacob Neal. TSO Neal, who served in the U.S. Air Force as a firefighter and medic before joining the TSA, demonstrated great leadership and poise as he took control of the situation, asking everyone to step away unless they were certified in CPR. He put on his gloves and started to give chest compressions, while also comforting the passenger's wife by letting her know that he was a former paramedic. His quick thinking, expertise, and professionalism made the difference. ``When someone is suffering like that you just feel compelled to jump in and help,'' said TSO Neal, a two-time O'Hare TSO of the Year honoree. Jacob Neal along with the others who helped save a man's life that day showed extraordinary strength and exemplified what it means to go above and beyond the call of duty. It is acts like these that inspire us to be better people and better citizens. Due to the quick thinking and composure of the men and woman involved, a potentially tragic situation was avoided. Again, I would like to thank Jacob Neal for his commendable efforts in saving a life this past month. I also want to recognize him and his TSA colleagues, and other federal employees who work hard each and every day to serve the public and keep our nation strong and secure.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on the 48th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, I rise to voice my strong support for these national treasures and to share with my colleagues the voices of older Americans from around the nation who rely on them. Before 1965, nearly half of all seniors were uninsured. If they became sick or injured, they were forced to use their savings, rely on their family, or go without needed medical care. Today, Medicare serves over 50 million seniors and persons with disabilities, providing them with the guaranteed benefits that they have earned over their working lives. Medicare is literally a life-saver. It can be improved--and we did so in Obamacare by lowering drug costs, eliminating cost-sharing for preventive services like colonoscopies and cancer screenings, and coordinating care to improve quality. Unfortunately, there are some who want to change Medicare not by making it better, but by shifting costs to those who cannot afford it. Some of those proposals involve increased premiums, deductibles and new cost-sharing requirements for home health services. Others--like those in the Republican-passed budget resolution--would radically change Medicare's very structure by turning it into a voucher program and leaving seniors and people with disabilities to bear dramatically higher costs. I urge my colleagues to consider the critical importance of Medicare and to join me in opposing proposals that would add to the financial burden of seniors and persons with disabilities who are already struggling. Here are some of the voices of those who need Medicare's guaranteed benefits. Michelle Adams, from Fallston Maryland, has been on Medicare for the past 13 years because she is disabled. If she didn't have Medicare, she says, ``I would be in bad shape without my prescription and possibly homeless because I wouldn't be able to afford both my medication and rent.'' Madeline Levine from Evergreen, Illinois has diagnosed with breast cancer shortly after she became eligible for Medicare. ``Without Medicare, I could not have afforded my treatment,'' she says. ``This gives me a peace of mind that I have protection.'' Juandra Drumgold from Dorchester, Massachusetts, depends on her family for a roof over her head and to pay for basic necessities. She says that not being able to work at such an elderly age and having to maintain her health care can be quite costly. If she did not have Medicare, she says, she would have to cut her living expenses even more, making a choice between medication and food. B. Peter Brandt-Sorheim from Mt. Morris, New York, saw his medical expenses drop by nearly two-thirds once he became eligible for Medicare last year. Before, he had to pay about $1,625 for a three-month supply of medication, he currently pays $135. If it weren't for Medicare, he says, ``I would be walking on the edge, crossing my fingers, and praying that someone would donate my Insulin medication to me.'' Toni Rosenberg of Boca Raton, Florida relies on Medicare for services related to high-blood pressure, lymphedema, and kidney disease. She says, ``If it was not for Medicare, I would be dead. If my Medicare benefits were cut or became more expensive, I would have to stop eating. By being single, Medicare has provided me with a safety net. Medicare is not an entitlement--it is something that we've paid into and should have when we 65. Medicare has provided me with not having to choose between eating healthy foods or being able to get my prescriptions. I do not have to worry about my health because I know I have coverage to take care of me. I am a voice for the people who cannot speak for themselves, please keep your hands off Medicare. My parents and family all fought to have Medicare in our golden years so that my children and grandchildren will have what I have to keep them going in their senior years.'' Harlan Lang from La Plata, Maryland, has been on Medicare for twelve years. He says, ``If I did not have Medicare coverage, the quality of my life would change terribly, because if I was in a crisis, I would not be able to make it without the coverage. I believe so strongly in Medicare, it is so important to me. I cannot afford to be without the coverage. Healthcare is so expensive; I wish it was even better.'' Rosie Woods lives in Richmond Virginia. ``I have been enrolled in Medicare for twenty years. Medicare has helped me to save on my prescriptions,'' she says. ``My health issues for which I am receiving treatment covered through Medicare is for cholesterol and I had a stroke in 2012. If I did not have Medicare my quality of life would change because I would have to go on the soup line. If my Medicare benefits were cut or if I was charged more, I would have to give up a whole lot. It would be a lot of stress that I would have to go through. Taking care of my home will be hard with the expenses. We work very hard for them to take money out of our checks expecting the benefits to be there when we retire.'' Barbara Bonfield of Birmingham, Alabama has been enrolled in Medicare for eleven years. She says, ``Medicare has helped me on most of my expenses. My husband died of a heart attack at the age of 64. At the age of 65, I was diagnosed with breast cancer and I am a survivor, Medicare was my primary insurer. Medicare has kept me well and it is a vital part of my community, without Medicare coverage I probably would not be alive today, it has kept me alive. If my Medicare benefits were cut or if I was charged more, I would be spending a lot of money to obtain my health care. I would have to re-adjust to everything (travel, food etc.). The last thing that I would have to reduce is my medications. I am very aware of the rising cost of medical care in this country and it is good to know that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the medical cost. Cynthia Ochs Saur from Melbourne, Florida says, ``I reside in Florida and have been enrolled in Medicare for four years. I have had two wellness exams for breast cancer and a lot of health issues which were treated thanks to Medicare. If I did not have Medicare coverage my quality of life would change quite a bit. If my Medicare benefits were cut or if I were charged more, I would have to give up other necessities in order to pay for the help for my medical problems. I would not be able to survive in many ways and would suffer greatly.'' Bruce Russell, Sr. is from Missoula, Montana and has been enrolled in Medicare for five years. He says, ``Two weeks ago I was operated on for a growth on my neck, had a colonoscopy test done and one growth was removed--neither one was cancerous. If I did not have Medicare coverage I would die young. My sister had severe arthritis and shingles, she put up with the pain for three years until she was enrolled in Medicare. People who retire on fixed incomes without medical insurance face serious quality of life issues daily when they do not have the benefits of Medicare which they worked for.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon to celebrate the 48th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid and the security they provide for seniors and persons with disabilities, half of whom live on less than $22,000, total, a year. Half of all seniors before Medicare had no insurance at all. Listen to my constituent, Nan Anderson from Evanston: It was a tremendous relief to become eligible for Medicare. Basically, I am a well person but have had some costly procedures, all of which have been covered. Currently, I am recovering from a spinal fusion. If it weren't for Medicare, I would never have reached this point. Without the surgery, I would likely have been reduced to a dependent person. Now I know that I will be able to walk normally and unaided for several years. We made improvements in Medicare in ObamaCare--lower drug costs, free preventive services, fraud-cutting, and improved quality. Medicaid pays for 40 percent of all long-term care costs. Today, I voice my support for Medicare and Medicaid and my vigorous opposition to benefit cuts that will harm those who depend on them.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1213.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, there's a word in Yiddish, ``chutzpah,'' that generally translates to ``nerve.'' It has been described as that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan. But ``chutzpah'' is also a pretty accurate description of the antics of the Republican Party today that--after throwing up roadblock after roadblock, obstruction after obstruction to ObamaCare, is now trying to delay access to care for millions of Americans on the grounds that we're not ready. Despite Republican obstructionism we are going to be ready, we are ready--and not a day too soon--for those who have been locked out of coverage, hit by annual benefit limits, or faced preexisting condition exclusions. Imagine the worry that is lifted off of the shoulders of Americans that have preexisting conditions that won't exist once we pass this. This is just another Republican attempted roadblock to progress, another obstructionism. It is ``chutzpah.'' Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Republicans to stop efforts that will prevent Americans from getting the health care they need.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. First, I want to express my thanks to the chairman for saying that he would accept this bipartisan amendment, and to my colleagues who have spoken about it. The decision to eliminate many of the functions from the Chicago and the Buffalo offices were done without consultation with the local communities and without seeking the approval of the Congress, which is what they are supposed to do. The downsizing just in Chicago could cause as many as 200 jobs lost in our area, and it certainly could affect the health and safety of our waterways. Chicago is the point of entry from the Mississippi River to the Great Lakes, and its harbors are of major economic importance not just to Chicago, but to the entire Great Lakes region. As my colleague pointed out, it's a shoreline greater than either the Pacific or the Atlantic Coast. Actually, I just learned that from you today. Thank you for that important information. Its harbors are of major economic importance to all of us, and it assists in the rehabilitation of the Chicago shoreline. It also, from the Chicago district office, leads the fight against the spread of the Asian carp into Lake Michigan. I have very serious concern about the downsizing of the Chicago district and the impacts it would have on those efforts. Like the chairman, I understand the Corps' efforts to reduce costs and our interest in doing that; but the minimization of the Chicago and Buffalo areas would trade short-term savings with much more significant and lasting long-term costs. As my colleague pointed out, Senator Kirk and Senator Durbin passed a similar amendment in the Senate. I urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting us in this important bipartisan amendment to prevent the Army Corps from reducing its Chicago and Buffalo offices. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I am hearing from constituents who are looking but unable to find jobs, and who are now faced with cuts to their Federal unemployment insurance (UI) benefits because of the sequester. These are people like Janice in Chicago, who last month wrote me, ``Yesterday, I received an email from the Illinois Department of Employment Security stating that starting in June and through the month of September, my unemployment benefits will be reduced by 16.8%'' because of the budget sequester. Or Mary in Arlington Heights, who emailed me, ``I am currently unemployed. These cuts will cost me $200 a month. This is a lot of money for a single woman living on her own. These effects are real. They're more than just numbers on a piece of paper.'' Mary is right--the effects of the sequester are happening to real people--people like her and Janice and their families. The Department of Labor estimates that by October 1, as many as 3.8 million unemployed workers could see reductions in their federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation benefits as a result of the sequester. For these families, the sequester means that they will have less money available to pay their mortgage or rent, doctor's and grocery bills. UI cuts ripple out into local communities, since unemployed workers will spend less on goods and services. Experts tell us that a $1 spent on UI benefits results in higher consumer spending and increased economic activity of between $1.50 and $2.00--so a $1 cut from UI benefits means an even greater loss in the effort to strengthen local economies. As Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics says, ``if you cut unemployment insurance, then the economic impact is outsized.'' (``Unemployment Benefit Cut Adds to Drag on U.S. Spending: Economy,'' Bloomberg News, May 6, 2013.) The National Employment Law Project has released an excellent analysis, ``The Sequester's Devastating Impact on Families of Unemployed Workers and the Struggling Unemployment Insurance System.'' It estimates that, if the sequester continues for the rest of FY2013, federal EUC benefits could be cut by more than $2.3 billion--an average of more than $400 per family. The NELP analysis also points out that the sequester's impacts do not stop at federal UI cuts--they also mean cuts to the training, job matching and reemployment initiatives designed to help unemployed workers get back to work. Those cuts, too, impose real harm on families and our economy by making it harder for unemployed men and women to get back into the workforce. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 900, the Cancel the Sequester Act, because it will stop these very harmful cuts to Federal UI benefits and job creation efforts. I urge my colleagues to come together now so that we can stop these across-the-board, meat-ax sequester cuts that are so damaging to our constituents.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Chicago Blackhawks on winning the 2013 Stanley Cup. As the team lifted the historic Stanley Cup in the air, it was as if they were lifting the City of Chicago itself. From beginning to end, the Blackhawks were the best team in the National Hockey League. They had the best start in NHL history, setting the record for most consecutive points scored to start a season. Entering the playoffs they were the overall number one seed. The team faced and defeated the Minnesota Wild, Detroit Red Wings, and the Los Angeles Kings to win the Clarence S. Campbell Bowl as Western Conference champions. Lead by Coach Joel Quenneville, the Blackhawks faced the Boston Bruins in the Stanley Cup Finals. It was truly a team effort to overcome the physicality and aggressiveness of the Bruins. After a hard-fought series, it came down to 2 goals scored in 17 seconds late in the third period, by Bryan Bickell and Dave Bolland, to overcome a one goal deficit to win the Stanley Cup. Patrick Kane became only the 4th American player to win the Conn Smythe Trophy as NHL Playoff MVP. As a lifelong Chicagoan I take great pride in congratulating the Blackhawks on another thrilling season. I thank them for bringing the Stanley Cup back to the Madhouse on Madison.