Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to tell my colleagues about the deleterious effect that sequestration is having on biomedical research and our ability to improve the health of people in communities across this country. This week, Dr. Teresa Woodruff, a reproductive endocrinologist and the Chief of the Division of Fertility Preservation at the Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, contacted me to explain how the sequester is harming her ability to perform critical research into the effects of toxins on female reproductive health and fertility. Last year, Dr. Woodruff applied for a grant from the Superfund Research Program, a joint program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Institutes of Health, to investigate and develop strategies to combat the proliferation of toxins at the DePue, Illinois Superfund site. Her application received a positive score and, after revising her research plan after being told that NIH lacked the resources needed to fully fund the project, she expected to receive funding and begin work this summer. Unfortunately, Dr. Woodruff's team will be unable to start this critical research. In May, she was told that NIEHS cannot award the Superfund grant because of the sequester--an additional across-the- board cut to an already-modest research budget. The NIEHS administrator responsible for awarding these grants indicated that he had never seen anything like this before in his career--never before was he unable to fund a grant after a positive award decision was made. Sequestration has pulled the rug out from under our researchers. Instead of working to understand the threats posed by environmental toxins, Dr. Woodruff's team is forced to delay this extremely valuable research. She is not giving up--and she will spend many more hours completing grant applications in hopes that funding will be available in the future. But, in the meantime, research that could result in real improvements for women's health and the environment is being put on hold. I hope my colleagues will take the time to read a summary of the important research that Dr. Woodruff's team is unable to perform due to the unnecessary and harmful sequester cuts. I urge my colleagues to restore vital research funding by supporting H.R. 900, the Cancel the Sequester Act, so that our researchers can get back to doing their work. Northwestern University Reproductive Health Hazards Superfund Research Center summary There is limited understanding of the effects of exposure to metals on human reproductive health. The proposed Northwestern University Reproductive Health Hazards Superfund Research Center was designed to investigate the effects of metal contaminants on reproductive function in DePue, Illinois and in Northwestern University laboratories. In the village of DePue, which was designated a Superfund site in 1999, the Center would investigate the longitudinal risk of heavy metal contamination on human reproductive health and track how such contaminants are dispersed through the food chain and microbial environments. Additionally, the Center would work with the village of DePue to educate the local community and translate new knowledge into policy changes to improve public health. At Northwestern University laboratories, Center researchers would also investigate the impact of metals on gamete (egg and sperm) function and reproductive health. Additionally, the team would develop new assays to assess the reproductive health risks of heavy metals and mitigation strategies for metal removal and environmental remediation. The knowledge gained by the Center would be applicable to the village of DePue, Superfund sites, and other contaminated sites across the United States. History Our team initially applied to the Superfund Research Program, a joint program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Institutes of Health, in the spring of 2012. In the fall of 2012, we were awarded a positive score with a good chance or receiving funding in response to our application, and we were asked to supply a letter of information responding to the limited criticisms from the peer review. In March 2013, we were offered an option informally to receive funding at a reduced amount for a reduced time period since our application was well reviewed and deemed meritorious but available funding was limited. We elected to accept this funding rather than resubmit and provided approximately 80 pages of revised budgets and supporting materials toward this option. That material was well- received, but two weeks prior to the annual resubmission deadline, it was suggested that we also resubmit our original application with revisions because the informally offered funding was in jeopardy due to sequestration and rescission. Even on this limited time-frame we managed to resubmit our application. Despite the continued confidence of the NIH program officers that the reduced grant would be funded as of July or August, in May we were formally informed that it would not be. It is important to note that the NIH receives funding for Superfund Research through the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee rather than the standard Labor/ HHS/Education Appropriations Subcommittee, which funds the majority of the NIH budget. We are now awaiting review of the resubmitted grant proposal in November and hope to obtain funding in April 2014. Sequestration, and the unpredictable nature of funding during this time, has not only delayed the creation of a critical research program but has consumed hundreds of man hours for the research team at Northwestern University. Contact Information Kate Timmerman, PhD, Program Director, Oncofertility Consortium, Northwestern University. Teresa K. Woodruff, PhD, Vice Chair for Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Director, Oncofertility Consortium, Northwestern University.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Eric Goldberg and Erika Gray for their achievement in being selected for the National Youth Orchestra of the United States of America. The National Youth Orchestra, spearheaded by Carnegie Hall, showcases America's finest young musicians and reinvigorates interest in youth musicianship at home and abroad. This achievement is the culmination of Eric and Erika's hard work, dedication, and training to hone their talent and develop their skills as musicians. The National Youth Orchestra provides Eric and Erika the opportunity to build upon their experiences in studying music at the Percussion Scholarship Group of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and New Trier High School, respectively. They will join an elite group of young musicians from across this country on an international tour that highlights the vast musical talent that exists in the United States. Their whirlwind tour will include performances at the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC; Bolshoi Hall of the Moscow Conservatory in Moscow, Russia; the Mariinsky Theatre Concert Hall in St. Petersburg, Russia; and the Royal Albert Hall in London, England. I am so proud that these talented young people will represent my congressional district, Illinois, and the United States as cultural ambassadors during their time with the National Youth Orchestra. I wish Eric, Erika, and other members of the National Youth Orchestra the best of luck on their tour and in their future musical endeavors.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman, who has been such a tremendous leader and head of our Hunger Caucus in the House of Representatives. Hunger in America--think of that. It ought to be a non sequitur. This is the richest country in the world, and yet one out of four of our children in this country is considered food insecure. That means that there are nights in this country when tens of thousands of children go to sleep hungry--American children. So, despite what the gentleman from Texas may say about the compassion for these children, 2 million people will be cut off of the food stamp program. Not all of them are rapists and murderers--they are children; they are senior citizens; they are people who go to work every day and yet can't afford to eat. I'm just finishing a week of living on the average food stamp, or SNAP, budget of $31.50 a week, $4.50 a day. You can spend $4.50 a day for one coffee at a Starbucks. It's not easy to live on that. That is the average food stamp benefit. It's just inconceivable to me that anyone has come to Congress with the idea that one would be willing to take food out of the mouths of hungry children--because it's not just the SNAP program. It's also school lunch programs and school breakfast programs, and 200,000 children are going to be cut off of those programs. Are you kidding me? This is what we're going to do? This is what the majority is going to vote for to do in our country? These are working people who often have overcome a rough time. I talked to a woman on SNAP who said she saw it as a trampoline. She was able to get over a rough spot in her life for herself and her children through the SNAP program. Voting for this cut is immoral and wrong. We should be voting against this cut and against the FARRM Bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sister Sheila Lyne, RSM, who is retiring after decades of service to Mercy Hospital. She is a recognized leader in the effort to improve the health and wellness of the residents of the city of Chicago. Sister Sheila was born and raised on the South side of Chicago. She got her MBA from the University of Chicago, and joined the community of Sisters of Mercy in 1953. After earning her Psychiatric Nursing degree, she began her tenure at Mercy Hospital & Medical Center in 1970. In 1976, Sister Sheila assumed the role of President and CEO at Mercy. In 1991, Sister Sheila was appointed by Mayor Richard M. Daley as Commissioner of Public Health for the City of Chicago. Under her leadership as Commissioner of Public Health, the city saw the infant mortality rate decrease by 6% and immunization rates rise to 73% from 27%. In 2000, she returned to Mercy to resume her former role of President and CEO and face a challenging turnaround effort. Each year over the past 12 years, Mercy has made significant strides forward in serving our community, and now boasts a nationally-recognized Heart & Vascular Center, one of the city's few Certified Stroke Centers, eleven medical satellite centers, and a completely state-of-the-art digital Breast Care Center, all under Sister Sheila's distinguished and direct leadership. Sister Sheila has been a leading voice for quality health for all people and an inspiration to those of us working to shape policy in a humane and comprehensive way.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes, I would just like to ask a question: Are there any Republican women on the House Judiciary Committee, which reported this legislation? And do you think it's fair or proper for a body of men to solely determine one of the most important and private decisions a woman can make in regard to her own health and body?

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, ten years ago Congress, with the leadership of the Bush Administration, enacted the bipartisan President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), an initiative which the Institute of Medicine in a Congressionally-requested February 2013 report called ``globally transformative.'' In its 10 years, PEPFAR has saved lives, improved health care delivery systems and, as the IOM concluded, provided a ``lifeline'' that restored hope to areas devastated by the epidemic. Over the course of its existence so far, PEPFAR has spent $46 billion to expand access to prevention, treatment and medical services. Through its contributions, new infections in sub-Saharan Africa, one of the hardest-hit areas, have dropped by 25 percent. PEPFAR is a success story. It is part of the global effort to prevent, treat, and, soon I hope, find a cure so that we can end AIDS. We should celebrate PEPFAR's decade's worth of achievements, while we must also recommit to its goals. For, as the IOM report stated and all of us know, ``substantial unmet needs remain across HIV services'' both here and abroad. PEPFAR itself is part of an ongoing effort to respond aggressively and effectively to HIV and AIDS. I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to an article by Dr. Allan Brandt from the June 6, 2013 New England Journal of Medicine, outlining the ways that the effort surrounding HIV/AIDS has reshaped our vision of global health--both what is needed and what is achievable. As we pause today to recognize the 10th anniversary of PEPFAR, it is also important to recognize the enormous work of AIDS activists and providers who have been leading this fight for decades. Their work, as Dr. Brandt's article details, has had consequences that go far beyond combating AIDS--as critical as that is-- to shape the way we think about the right to medical care, health care justice, and our global relationships and responsibilities. It has also focused on the need to make essential medicines available--a matter of much attention in the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership trade discussions--and to build robust networks of medical professionals and community health workers. Today, PEPFAR continues to partner with countries that rely on the United States to show leadership in meeting ongoing needs and challenges. While we can celebrate its successes today, we cannot be complacent. The fight against AIDS is a fight for global health, and it is one that we must continue to support. [From the New England Journal of Medicine, June 6, 2013] How AIDS Invented Global Health (By Allan M. Brandt, Ph.D.) Over the past half-century, historians have used episodes of epidemic disease to investigate scientific, social, and cultural change. Underlying this approach is the recognition that disease, and especially responses to epidemics, offers fundamental insights into scientific and medical practices, as well as social and cultural values. As historian Charles Rosenberg wrote, ``disease necessarily reflects and lays bare every aspect of the culture in which it occurs.'' Many historians would consider it premature to write the history of the HIV epidemic. After all, more than 34 million people are currently infected with HIV. Even today, with long-standing public health campaigns and highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), HIV remains a major contributor to the burden of disease in many countries. As Piot and Quinn indicate in this issue of the Journal (pages 2210-2218), combating the epidemic remains a test of our expanding knowledge and vigilance. Nonetheless, the progress made in addressing this pandemic and its effects on science, medicine, and public health have been far-reaching. The changes wrought by HIV have not only affected the course of the epidemic: they have had powerful effects on research and science, clinical practices, and broader policy. AIDS has reshaped conventional wisdoms in public health, research practice, cultural attitudes, and social behaviors. Most notably, the AIDS epidemic has provided the foundation for a revolution that upended traditional approaches to ``international health,'' replacing them with innovative global approaches to disease. Indeed, the HIV epidemic and the responses it generated have been crucial forces in ``inventing'' the new ``global health.'' This epidemic disrupted the traditional boundaries between public health and clinical medicine, especially the divide between disease prevention and treatment. In the 1980s, before the advent of antiretroviral therapies, public health officials focused on controlling social and behavioral risk factors; prevention was seen as the only hope. But new treatments have eroded this distinction and the historical divide between public health and clinical care. Clinical trials have shown that early treatment benefits infected patients not only by dramatically extending life expectancy, but by significantly reducing the risk of transmission to their uninfected sexual partners. Essential medicines benefit both patients and populations, providing a critical tool for reducing fundamental health disparities. This insight has encouraged the integration of approaches to prevention and treatment, in addition to behavioral change and adherence. The rapid development of effective antiretroviral treatments, in turn, could not have occurred without new forms of disease advocacy and activism. Previous disease activism, for example, had established important campaigns supporting tuberculosis control, cancer research, and the rights of patients with mental illness. But AIDS activists explicitly crossed a vast chasm of expertise. They went to Food and Drug Administration meetings and events steeped in the often-arcane science of HIV, prepared to offer concrete proposals to speed research, reformulate trials, and accelerate regulatory processes. This approach went well beyond the traditional bioethical formulations of autonomy and consent, As many clinicians and scientists acknowledged, AIDS activists, including many people with AIDS, served as collaborators and colleagues rather than constituents and subjects, changing the trajectory of research and treatment. These new models of disease activism, enshrined in the Denver Principles (1983), which demanded involvement ``at every level of decision-making,'' have spurred new strategies among many activists focused on other diseases. By the early 2000s, AIDS activists had forged important transnational alliances and activities, establishing a critical aspect of the ``new'' global health. Furthermore, HIV triggered important new commitments in the funding of health care, particularly in developing countries. With the advent of HAART and widening recognition of HIV's potential effect on the fragile progress of development in resource-poor settings, HIV spurred substantial increases in funding from sources such as the World Bank. The growing concern in the United Nations and elsewhere that the epidemic posed an important risk to global ``security'' elicited new funding from donor countries, ultimately resulting in the establishment of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. In 2003, it was joined by the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which, with bipartisan support, initially pledged $15 billion over 5 years. Since PEPFAR's inception, Congress has allocated more than $46 billion for treatment, infrastructure, and partnerships that have contributed to a 25% reduction in new infections in sub-Saharan Africa. HIV has also attracted remarkable levels of private philanthropy, most notably from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. HIV funding led to new public private partnerships that have become a model for funding of scientific investigation, global health initiatives, and building of crucial health care delivery infrastructure in developing countries. These funding programs have fomented contentious debates about priorities, efficiency, allocation processes, and broader strategies for preventing and treating many diseases, especially in poorer countries. Nonetheless, they offered new approaches to identifying critical resources and evaluating their effect on the burden of disease. The success of future efforts will depend on maintaining and expanding essential funding during a period of global economic recession, as well as new strategies for evaluating the efficacy of varied interventions. AIDS also spurred another related debate that continues to roil global health about the cost of essential medicines. Accessibility of effective and preventive treatments has relied on the availability of reduced-cost drugs and their generic equivalents. A recent decision by the Indian Supreme Court upheld India's right to produce inexpensive generics, despite the multinational pharmaceutical industry's claims for stronger recognition of patents. Another central aspect of the new activism was an insistence that the AIDS epidemic demanded the recognition of basic human rights. Early on, lawyers, bioethicists, and policymakers debated the conditions under which traditional civil liberties could be abrogated to protect the public from the threat of infection. Such formulations reflected traditional approaches to public health and the ``police powers'' of the state, including mandatory testing, isolation, detention, and quarantine. Given the stigma attached to HIV infection at the time, as well as ungrounded fears of casual transmission, affected people often suffered the double jeopardy of disease and discrimination. As a result, Jonathan Mann, the first director of the World Health Organization's Global Program on AIDS, explained, ``To the extent that we exclude AIDS infected persons from society, we endanger society, while to the extent that we maintain AIDS infected persons within society, we protect society. This is the message of realism and of tolerance.'' Mann argued that HIV could never be successfully addressed if impositions on human rights led people to hide their infections rather than seek testing and treatment. Only policy approaches that recognized and protected human rights (including the rights to treatment and care, gender equality, and education) would permit successful clinical and population-based interventions. These complementary innovations are at the core of what we now call ``global health'' which has demonstrated its capacity to be far more integrative than traditional notions of international health. It draws together scientists, clinicians, public health officials, researchers, and patients, while relying on new sources of funding, expertise, and advocacy. This new formulation is distinct, first of all, in that it recognizes the essential supranational character of problems of disease and their amelioration and the fact that no individual country can adequately address diseases in the face of the movement of people, trade, microbes, and risks. Second, it focuses on deeper knowledge of the burden of disease to identify key health disparities and develop strategies for their reduction. Third, it recognizes that people affected by disease have a crucial role in the discovery and advocacy of new modes of treatment and prevention and their equitable access. Finally, it is based on ethical and moral values that recognize that equity and rights are central to the larger goals of preventing and treating diseases worldwide. For more than the past decade, major academic medical centers, schools of public health, and universities have created global health programs and related institutes for multidisciplinary research and education. Thus, the institutionalization of this formulation is not only affecting services worldwide, but also changing the training of physicians, other health professionals, and students of public health. When the history of the HIV epidemic is eventually written, it will be important to recognize that without this epidemic there would be no global health movement as we know it today.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of efforts to fight sexual assault in the military. Sexual assault and rape are violent and horrific crimes, and they must be treated as serious offense, not--as Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia has suggested--as a byproduct of ``hormones.'' According to Pentagon estimates, last year, over 70 service women and men were sexually assaulted every single day. The Department of Defense estimates that 26,000 sexual assaults occurred last year, an increase from the estimated 19,300 assaults in 2010. Yet only a fraction of those crimes are referred to courts martial. We face an epidemic of sexual assault in the military. Because of a culture of intimidation and retaliation against victims, coupled with the low rate of prosecution and punishment, the vast majority of these crimes go unreported. In some instances, the victim seeks help but opts not to file a formal complaint. The men and women of the armed services risk their lives to defend our country. Our military is built on the values of trust, discipline, and respect. Despite growing discussion and awareness of the fact that sexual assault has become entrenched in our military culture, we've seen limited progress toward a solution. That's why I am proud to support provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that make progress toward combating military sexual assault. As currently written, the NDAA strips commanders of their ability to dismiss court martial convictions for serious offenders, and it prohibits commanders from reducing guilty findings for serious offenses. The NDAA requires that servicemembers found guilty of rape or sexual assault be punitively discharged from the military. Among other provisions, the Defense Authorization bill we're considering today also lays out the rights of victims. It allows them to apply for a permanent change of station or unit transfer, ensuring they are not forced to continue to serve next to their assaulter. However, I believe we need to go further. I am a cosponsor of Congresswoman Jackie Speier's legislation H.R. 1593, the Sexual Assault Training Oversight and Prevention (STOP) Act. The STOP Act would take the reporting, oversight, investigation and victim care of sexual assaults out of the hands of the military's normal chain of command and place jurisdiction in the newly-created, autonomous Sexual Assault Oversight and Response Office comprised of civilian and military experts. In addition to the STOP Act, Congresswoman Speier has introduced an amendment--which I am proud to cosponsor--to the Defense Authorization bill taking the decision-making of whether to prosecute out of the chain of command and give discretion to trained prosecutors. Mr. Speaker, service women and men who survive sexual violence should not have to choose between their careers and justice. They should not be afraid to report crimes perpetrated against them, and they should not face intimidation when seeking treatment and other services. I strongly believe we need to take action now to fundamentally change the way sexual assault is handled in the military by passing legislation to prevent and punish sexual assault and rape.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to tell my colleagues about one of my constituents, Heriberto Leon, who wrote recently to explain the real-life consequences of the sequester, for him and for our country. Mr. Leon is not asking Congress for much--he simply wants to be able to do his job as an EPA community involvement coordinator, helping to improve access to clean air and clean water for communities in the Chicagoland area. My constituent spends his day providing information to communities that are dealing with well water contamination from benzene. He is working to address the environmental and health consequences of pollution, effects that are particularly harmful to children and older Americans. He obviously enjoys his work and he is making a real contribution. Mr. Leon is not trying to enrich himself--in fact, he took a $20,000 pay cut when he took his EPA job in 2010 and has been living with a three-year pay freeze. It is clear to me that, like so many Federal workers, he is committed to serving the public. And, like so many Federal workers, he cannot understand why he is unable to do his job and is being asked to take an additional personal, financial hit because of the sequester. Mr. Leon is being asked to take 13 furlough days, because of the arbitrary and harsh impacts of the across-the-board sequester cuts. That's about a $4,000--11% pay cut. We need people like Heriberto Leon at EPA, and I worry how we will be able to attract and retain dedicated Federal workers when they are faced with furloughs and budget cuts that prevent them from fulfilling their mission and impose serious financial hardships on them. I hope that my colleagues will take the time to read Mr. Leon's full letter and that, after doing so, you will join me in supporting H.R. 900, the Cancel the Sequester Act. Our constituents are counting on us to act now. Letter From Heriberto Leon Re Furlough Imposed on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Employees. Dear Representative Schakowsky: It is with much frustration and heartbreak that I write to you this letter to urge you to continue efforts to end the sequester and its impact on working class public employees such as myself. Today is my second furlough day since the sequester began earlier this year. Because I'm not at work today, I am unable to attend to Americans struggling with the impact of soil, water and air pollution in their communities. As a community involvement coordinator in EPA's Region 5 office, I translate to Spanish EPA information for Chicago neighborhoods like Pilsen and Little Village and help explain to residents in Wedron, IL how the Superfund Law and the Clean Drinking Water Act each will help the EPA address the benzene contamination in their well water. I have similar assignments with communities facing contaminated sites throughout the Great Lakes states of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. My workload is sufficient to keep me busy many hours beyond my regular work hours, which many times I am happy to offer because I love to contribute to citizens who are victims of industrial pollution. Instead I'm asked to not show up to work so that my salary can be used to save money for a made-up fiscal crisis. According to EPA's announcement earlier this year I have a total of 13 furlough days between April and September, the end of the fiscal year. That means a pay-cut of nearly $4000, or 11% of my salary between now and September. That amount is almost what I will need in August to pay the second installment of my Cook County real estate tax bill! Shall I sell my house and move out of Cook County or Illinois altogether? Congresswoman Schakowsky, I gladly took a pay cut of 20K to come to work for the federal government in 2010 as I understood that I would be able to progress through the federal employment step and grade system. However, that same year a now three-year-old pay freeze was imposed on government workers. I have had many employers in my work-life from institutions of higher learning such as Loyola University Chicago to private contractors for the Chicago Housing Authority. Never have I experienced the utter disregard and insulting treatment I feel from my employer, the Government of the United States of America, and the politicians responsible for its policies. The most demeaning day for me was just a few days ago when my supervisor ordered me to fill out EPA's ``Request for Leave'' form to ``request'' my own furlough days. This sequestration was never supposed to happen. It is unfair and unreasonable. But it has happened anyway. I am happy that Air Traffic workers and other co-workers throughout the federal government have by now been exempted from furloughs. It pains me terribly that no similar consideration is expressed for those of us who are charged with caring for the environmental, economic, health, housing and other equally important concerns of the American people. Finally, I would like to thank your staff for listening to me and submit this letter for your consideration. Sincerely, Heriberto Leon.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my congratulations to Representative John Dingell for his remarkable career and service to our country. Last week, he celebrated an accomplishment that--like Joe DiMaggio's hitting streak--is likely never to be broken. Last week, John Dingell served his 21,000 day in the House of Representatives--and he is now the longest-serving member in the history of Congress. Not one of us in the House today has served a single day without having John Dingell as a colleague. His influence goes far beyond his longevity. When I came to Congress in 1999, my goal was to join the Energy and Commerce Committee, a committee that John Dingell chaired, shaped and made into a powerful force. He has helped to enact some of the most important laws of our time--from the Civil Rights Act to the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to Medicare and the Affordable Care Act. He is a champion of working people and a believer in the American Dream--creating opportunity for all. Countless members of Congress have learned valuable lessons from John Dingell. One of the most valuable lessons I learned from Congressman Dingell was how to question witnesses appearing before the Committee. He fights tirelessly to represent his district and his constituents. He has mentored generations of high-quality and devoted staffers. He has taught us that our job is not just about legislating, but about oversight--and he is known for his skills in both areas. His efforts have helped millions and have resulted in a more effective and accountable government for the American people. I am grateful to have John Dingell as a friend and a colleague. I congratulate him on all that he has accomplished, and I wish him and his extraordinary wife Deborah all the best as he continues to serve the 12th Congressional District of Michigan and the nation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Schakowsky/ Miller amendment, included in this en bloc. I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee for including this amendment. Last November, the world was shocked by a horrific fire at Bangladesh's Tazreen Fashions garment factory. 112 workers were killed in the blaze; survivors recounted terrifying conditions, including locked exits and workers forced to jump from 4th story windows. The Tazreen fire is far from an isolated incident. Many of Bangladesh's 4 million garment workers--most of whom are women--risk their lives every day they go to work in extremely unsafe factories. While governments and corporations alike have spoken of their dedication to improving conditions and protecting workers rights, the fact remains that many Bangladeshi garment factories are literally death traps. In the rubble of the Tazreen fire, activists found evidence suggesting that, among other apparel, the factory produced products with Marine insignias. Photographs taken in the ashes of Tazreen show patterns and orders for sweatshirts and pants with the Marine Corps logo, the motto ``Semper Fi,'' and even the tagline ``The Few. The Proud.'' According to public data, the Army-Air Force Exchange imported some 124,000 pounds of garments last year from factories in Bangladesh. Mr. Speaker, apparel made for our brave men and women in uniform should not be made in needlessly dangerous factories. Workers making clothing for our military exchanges shouldn't face daily threats of deadly fire, building collapse, and other preventable tragedies. They shouldn't be fired for refusing to work in unsafe conditions, nor should they be denied basic, internationally-recognized worker rights. The Schakowsky/Miller would require that garments made in Bangladesh and sold at DoD base retail stores and exchanges comply with an enforceable fire and building safety accord. Specifically, the amendment would help the United States government save lives in Bangladesh by requiring that military exchanges which sell their own branded garments made in Bangladesh must join or abide by the conditions of the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh. It also states that military exchanges that license production of their own brands or sell at retail other branded garments shall provide a preference to vendors which are signatories to the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh. The accord is a major improvement on non-binding and voluntary social compliance programs that have failed to protect workers from mortal workplace dangers. The Accord has widespread support, and signatories include fifty major global apparel companies and retailers (including U.S. companies Abercrombie & Fitch, Sean John Apparel, and PVH Corporation). It has also received the support of civil society and international organizations, including the European Parliament, the United Nations, and the International Labour Organization. The military exchanges should represent the best of American values-- including those of fairness, justice, and commitment to human rights. This amendment is an important step toward ensuring that the United States military commissaries and exchanges are not unintentionally supporting abuses against garment workers in Bangladesh.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Michael Rosen as he receives the inaugural Patient Impact Legacy Award from the Cures Within Reach Foundation for his work in the BioSciences over the last 30 years. Michael Rosen has been chosen to receive this inaugural Legacy Award based on his leadership and involvement in the BioScience industry and his interest in the betterment of the regional community. Currently the Senior Vice President of the Forest City Science + Technology Group, Rosen is responsible for developing marketing strategies for Forest City's biotech projects across the United States and serves as their liaison to the life science industry developing relationships with clients and major research universities. Forest City Science + Technology Group is one of the country's leading developers & owners of science parks associated with leading research-based universities. He is also a founding member, current board member and former vice- chairman of IBIO, the Illinois Biotechnology Industry Organization, and chairman of its predecessor organization. Prior to Forest City, Mr. Rosen spent 32 years as an executive in the pharmaceutical, biotech and medical device industries in the U.S. and abroad working in Europe, Asia and Latin America. The Cures Within Reach Midwest BioScience Industry Campaign event will occur annually to celebrate both the industry in our region, and its commitment to life-changing solutions for patients. Cures Within Reach was founded in 2005 as a Chicago-based not-for-profit organization helping patients by repurposing FDA-approved drugs and devices to deliver fast, safe and affordable treatments for diseases and rare disorders that have insufficient or nonexistent therapies. Cures Within Reach has emerged as a leader in the repurposing revolution, working to transform patient lives through research that looks backward to move forward. Past research has delivered seven treatments in use today in major disease areas and rare disorders including Multiple Sclerosis, Autoimmune Lymphoproliferative Syndrome, Lung Cancer, Prostate Cancer, and Familial Dysautonomia. Current research projects are in process at many select institutional partners, including The Mayo Clinic, the Seattle Children's Hospital, Rush University, The University of Chicago, Weill Cornell, and the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. I join others in the Chicago area in offering my deep gratitude for Michael's decades of work and lifelong commitment to patients and the bioscience that heals them, and to Cures Within Reach. I wish them well and ask this body to do the same on this momentous occasion.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on June 10, 1963, President John F. Kennedy signed the bipartisan Equal Pay Act, which requires equal pay for equal work. A great idea, but 50 years later women earn 77 cents for every dollar men make--a yearly gap of over $11,000 between working men and women. Women of color earn even less. Does anyone think that if this Congress were a majority of women, that this bill would still be stonewalled from even being debated in this House and by this Republican majority? We would debate the Paycheck Fairness Act right away. Since most American families rely on women's wages, the pay gap means $11,000 less every year for their groceries, rent, and doctors' visits. And the effects last a lifetime, resulting in lower pensions and Social Security benefits. Fifty years--a half a century--is far too long for women to wait for paycheck fairness. Here is a little warning: women may not be a majority here now, but we are a majority of voters. Let's pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

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

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Deutch and Mr. Foster's amendment. I think it is absolutely astonishing. We can have a conversation about different people who are here undocumented and whether or not they ought to be in detention and whether or not they have a criminal record and whether they're a danger to our country, but to say that 34,000 beds have to be filled no matter what is so un-American. It's so un-American to say we're going to build X number of prison cells and then, no matter what the law says, we're going to fill them. We start with the need to fill the cell? What the Deutch-Foster amendment would do would be to strike that mandate. It doesn't strike the idea that some people are going to be detained. It just strikes the idea that we have to fill what Janet Napolitano, who is the Homeland Security Secretary, just said is arbitrary. These mandated levels effectively mean that ICE, our immigration system, can't make detention decisions based on risk to our country, to our people, the various agency priorities. Its officers have to focus instead on filling daily quotas. And as a result, growing numbers of immigrants are held in detention. In fiscal year 2011 alone, ICE detained 429,000 people. Let's talk about those people. Some of them are dangerous criminals, but most are not. Over half of the immigrants detained in 2009 and 2010 had zero criminal history. Of those who did, about 20 percent had only traffic violations. Only 11 percent of the detainees with felony convictions had committed violent crimes. Included among those detained are victims of trafficking, families with small children, elderly individuals, individuals with serious medical and mental health conditions. Many of those detained have U.S. citizen children or spouses and deep ties to their American families and their communities. Many have potential claims for lawful status, but still are detained for months or even years. Some are even survivors of torture seeking asylum in the United States. In my district, the Heartland Alliance Marjorie Kovler Center works with survivors of torture and emphasizes that placing these individuals in detention can be particularly traumatic, even replicating the feeling of vulnerability that they experienced during their torture. And the irony is this: detaining large numbers of immigrants who have no criminal convictions, except immigration charges, does not make us safer. It's not necessary to enforce immigration law--we don't need it to enforce the immigration law--and it represents a major waste of taxpayer dollars. Each detainee costs the government around $164 a day to hold. I understand why the prison industry, the private prisons in particular, would love to see $164 and set this goal of detaining all these people every day. So we should detain people because they pose a threat to our communities, not to meet congressionally mandated quotas. The criminal justice system does use a range of cheaper and effective custody options: electronic monitoring, house arrest. Alternatives to detention cost between 30 cents and $14 per individual per day, far less than our current spending on detention. We're making real progress toward immigration reform. The Senate is considering language that would allow undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows and earn the chance to pursue their American Dream. Let me tell you, as a first-generation American, I find this policy so offensive to me, and my district is one of the most diverse in the country. To say we have to fill prison beds with these people, whether or not they're criminals, whether or not they pose harm to our country, this is not who we are as Americans. These provisions don't make us safer and they don't solve the immigration challenges we face. They are a waste of taxpayer money. I urge support of the Deutch-Foster amendment in promoting real immigration reform and yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I rise today to express my strong support for funding veterans' programs. However, I am very concerned that this bill is part of a Republican budget that would shortchange other critical priorities--like education, nutrition and housing assistance, healthcare and medical research. I voted in favor of H.R. 2216, the Military Construction--VA Appropriations bill for FY 2014 because I believe it is critical that we keep our promises to our veterans. Today's legislation provides $157.8 billion for veterans' programs and military construction in FY 2014, including the over $73 billion in advance appropriations for veterans' health care approved in last year's appropriations measure. It also contains $55.6 billion in advance FY 2015 funding for VA medical programs. Among other critical priorities, it provides over $290 million to help the VA eliminate the disability claims backlog by 2015, including funding for the VA's paperless process claims system. It provides $344 million for the Pentagon and the VA to implement a joint integrated electronic health records system. These funds are critical: the VA has nearly 900,100 Pending disability claims and, of those, 72 percent have been pending for over 125 days. That is unacceptable; the backlog is causing serious hardships for veterans and families throughout our country, and it is imperative that we work with the VA to ensure that the backlog is eliminated and all claims are processed in a fair and timely manner. While I am proud to support critical funding for those who served our nation, I have serious concerns about the implications this bill carries for the rest of the appropriations process. The Republican Budget sets the lowest cap on discretionary spending in a decade. Non- defense discretionary spending would be reduced even below the levels required under the sequester. Because of those limits, the adequate funding of this bill will result in inadequate funding of other spending bills down the line. Those other bills fund national priorities including education, nutrition and housing assistance, and programs to spur job growth. We cannot afford to abandon those important initiatives. The White House warned, in its veto threat for this legislation, that enacting this bill ``while adhering to the overall spending limits in the House Budget's top line discretionary level for fiscal year (FY) 2014, would hurt our economy and require draconian cuts to middle-class priorities.'' I couldn't agree more. We need to set a realistic spending ceiling so that all of our national priorities receive adequate funding.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, we are privileged to be Members of the single legislative body in the entire world that has the greatest opportunity to actually address the biggest challenge humankind has ever faced: the warming of our tiny planet and the devastating consequences that will follow. I'm not asking anyone to agree that humans are the cause. I'm only asking that, regardless of the cause, adding more carbon to the atmosphere does put our lifestyles and, ultimately, the lives of generations at peril. No one will view this notion as radical in the near future, and we will all be judged. We can choose now to shift toward cleaner fuel sources that will make our country forever energy independent, or we can continue to leave American consumers subject to unpredictable oil prices and severe public health and climate change. Our atmosphere can only absorb about 565 gigatons more of carbon dioxide before global temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius. If that happens, the planet faces catastrophic consequences. Keystone XL would push us toward that cliff. TransCanada's application is to run a pipeline filled with the dirtiest oil through the middle of our country, refine it, and then export it on the world OPEC market. Even those who support the pipeline should agree to examine the consequences of its construction. This bill would prevent that from even happening. I ask my colleagues to take your heads out of the tar sands and let's all work together to collaboratively address the crises that we face. We can meet our energy and environmental challenges together.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. Rather than more rhetoric, I challenge my Republican colleagues to explain to the American people why we should take away the benefits and protections that ObamaCare already provides and will provide; explain to the 125,000 young adults in Illinois that they have to get off their parents' policies, even if they're sick; explain to the 134,000 seniors in Illinois who have saved over $235 million on their prescription drugs why we need them to pay more for their drugs; and explain to the 1.4 million Illinoisans who will finally have the opportunity to obtain quality, dependable health insurance coverage--sorry, politics trumps expanding their access to health services. I urge my colleagues to take a stand for the health of the American public. Vote ``no'' to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, are you kidding me? Taking food out of the mouths of hungry children--is that the reason that any of us would come to Congress? But that is exactly what the farm bill that's being considered today does. It takes food out of the mouths of hungry children. Not only will 1 million children lose their SNAP funding--the money that puts food on the table--but 200,000 of them will also lose their school lunches. This in the richest country in the world? This in the name of deficit reduction? This in a country where already tens of millions of children go to sleep hungry? There's not a district in this Nation, there's not a Member of Congress who doesn't have constituents who have to line up at a food pantry because otherwise they and their children would go to sleep hungry. This is the most incredibly mean-spirited piece of legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote on the $20 billion cut in SNAP.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Calvin ``Cal'' Sutker, a political and community leader, a devoted family man, and a treasured friend to many. Cal Sutker had an illustrious political career that included many elected and appointed leadership positions, beginning as a Trustee in the Village of Skokie from 1965 to 1969, where he helped pass one of the first Fair Housing Ordinances in the State of Illinois. From 1985 to 1991, Mr. Sutker ably represented his community in the Illinois General Assembly as State Representative and went on to become Cook County Commissioner from 1994 to 2002. Mr. Sutker served as Niles Township Democratic Committeeman for 33 years, from 1973 to 2006. He also served as Chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party and as State Central Committeeman. He was a friend and supporter of many aspiring and serving elected officials, including me, for which I will always be grateful. In addition to the many laws and ordinances that he authored that have made life better for the people of Illinois, Mr. Sutker has left an indelible physical legacy for our community. He was instrumental in bringing the Skokie Northshore Sculpture Park, the 2nd District Courthouse, and the Illinois Holocaust Museum to Skokie. In 2006, a Cook County Forest Preserve District grove was name for Cal Sutker. Mr. Sutker was active in Jewish charitable causes, and a staunch support of NA'AMAT USA, in which his beloved wife Phyllis was a leader for many years. He enlisted in the United States Army in 1942, serving in Germany, France and Austria during World War II. He was in the battalion that first entered the Dachau concentration camp and liberated its prisoners, and spoke regularly to community and student groups about his experiences during the war. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Chicago. Calvin Sutker and his late wife Phyllis had four children--Edie Sue Sutker, a Skokie Trustee, Shelly Sutker-Dermer, a Circuit Court Judge in Skokie, Sharon McGowan, and Allen Sutker. He is also survived by his eight grandchildren, his sister Ada Rabinowitz, and his brother Irwin Sutker.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1406, the misnamed ``Working Families Flexibility Act.'' This bill would take away critical overtime pay from families still struggling from the effects of the Great Recession. It might provide more flexibility for some businesses, but it would create real hardship for everyone else. Under this bill, employers could offer comp time to replace earned time-and-a-half wages for overtime. But workers who opt for that time off would not be guaranteed to get it when they want it--employers would have the right to deny comp time off requests, even if the request was needed for a personal or family emergency. Employers could dictate when you got your comp time--and they could make those decisions unilaterally. If you want to take comp time to care for a loved one or see your daughter in a school play, your employer can say no. And you have no right to appeal. And if the business closes or lays you off before you have a chance to use your comp time, you get nothing at all. Under this bill, a worker would have the option of foregoing overtime pay and hoping that sometime in the future she can get time off when she needs it, not when it's convenient for her employer. That's option one--work more and get paid less. Or she can take option two: demand overtime pay and find out that another worker--one who is willing to accept the employer's offer of future comp time--is given the extra hours. That unfairness is the reason that over 160 organizations representing working women oppose H.R. 1406--groups like Jewish Women International, the Coalition of Labor Union Women, the National Council of Women's Organizations, Wider Opportunities for Women, the National Women's Law Center, and the National Partnership for Women and Families. The U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce also opposes this bill. Their CEO Margot Dorfman writes, ``H.R. 1406 would reward those employees who agree to ``comp time'' in lieu of overtime payments. Employers incentivized by a reduced payroll might well give ``comp time'' employees the preferred shifts, the needed hours, and the promotions. There is no protection in H.R. 1406 against this kind of employer behavior.'' The American Sustainable Business Council and Restaurant Opportunities Center United joins in opposition to H.R. 1406, because it ``would create headaches for any employer who must track banked hours across multiple employees.'' They add, it ``becomes a scheduling and accounting challenge when employees decide to trade in banked hours, requiring business owners to make unexpected shifts in personnel and paychecks. Obviously, small businesses with fewer resources and employees would be even harder hit by these enormous logistics than larger corporations.'' It's true that working women and men need greater flexibility and the ability to balance family and job obligations. That's why today we should be debating the Healthy Families Act to guarantee paid sick leave. We should be debating expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act to provide the paid leave needed to allow working women and men to address family needs. Instead, the Republican majority has decided to bring this bill to the floor--a bill that threatens overtime pay and gives employers more ability to determine schedules for their workers. That is no solution for working families.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record opposing the GOP's disrespectful Mother's Day gift--more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the enormous contributions of a true American patriot: Isabella Catherine Ingles (nee Hankel). Isabella has done a lot with her life: she is a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a World War II veteran, and so much more. She is a great example of what we call the ``greatest generation.'' Isabella was born in Chicago, Illinois, in 1921, and graduated from Senn High School. A few short years afterwards, the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor and entered into World War II. Isabella felt the need to contribute to the war effort, and enlisted in the United States Navy in early 1944. After basic training, she attended the Control Tower Operator School, and graduated second in her class. Isabella was stationed in the Pacific Northwest, and spent the next two years working in the control tower at Naval Air Station Pasco, in Washington State. While stationed here, Isabella met her future husband, Roy Ingles, who was at the time serving as an Aviation Chief Machinist Mate, and had survived the sinking of the USS Lexington during the Battle of the Coral Sea. Isabella left the Navy in 1946, having achieved the rank of Specialist (Control Tower Operator) First Class, and returned to her home in Chicago. Roy soon followed and the two were married on her birthday the next year. Isabella Ingles has kept very busy in the years since. Settling in Des Plaines, Illinois, Isabella and Roy had two boys and two girls. Following in their parents' footsteps, both of her sons went on to serve, joining the United States Air Force. After raising her children, Isabella became a Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant, and worked with senior citizens in her local community as the Activities Director for a local assisted living facility. Since then, she has continued to contribute. Isabella is a long time volunteer all over our community: helping with the Des Plaines Self Help Closet & Pantry, visiting the local Veterans Administration hospital and volunteering for over six decades with the Women's Service League. On behalf of myself and a grateful nation, I want to thank Isabella Catherine Ingles for all that she has done for our nation: for her service, her sacrifices, and for all the contributions she has made to our community. I want to welcome her, and all the other veterans participating in the ``Honor Flights'' to Washington, DC to visit the World War II Memorial.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Some of my Republican colleagues were raging that air traffic was slowed by a so-called political manipulation of the sequester. I joined most of my House colleagues in voting to make a special exception for the FAA because we do want traffic to flow. But I have a news flash: cutting billions of dollars from the budget in a sequester in a meat-ax way does have real consequences. Furloughs are also occurring at the Departments of Defense and Agriculture, at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Head Start is cutting 70,000 slots for early childhood education. In my neighboring Indiana, there's a raffle being held to decide which children are going to be kicked out of the Head Start program. Four million Meals on Wheels are going to be cut for seniors who are depending on them. The Medicare Anti-Fraud Division is being cut. That makes no sense. And the sequester is projected to cost 750,000 American jobs this year. So, Mr. Speaker, I too ask unanimous consent to bring H.R. 900 to the floor that would repeal the sequester.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Stephen Coats, a great friend, tremendous leader, and tireless champion for working people throughout the world. Throughout his life, Stephen was driven by his unwavering commitment to social justice. From his years as political advocacy director for Bread for the World, where he fought global poverty, to his work at the US/Guatemala Education Project (US/GLEP) in the 1990s, where he worked to insert language to protect worker rights, Stephen's work emphasized our common humanity and international solidarity. After US/GLEP broadened to become the U.S. Labor Education in the Americas Project (USLEAP), Stephen served as Executive Director, working to protect the rights of working people across Latin America. His work has been enormously influential on U.S. policy toward Guatemala, Colombia, Honduras, and Mexico. He gave workers throughout Latin America a voice in Washington. By bringing delegations of workers to Congress, most recently a representative from Colombia who came to my office, he presented a powerful and personal call for justice, putting a human face on the need for action. Stephen touched many lives through his work for worker justice, including mine. He recognized the dignity of work and the need to provide fair and respectful treatment for working men and women throughout the world, but particularly in Central America. He called on all of us to care for each other and to commit ourselves to improving the lives of people who we may never meet but who deserve our attention. Stephen was a real leader but, more importantly, he made leaders of others. We are still reeling from Stephen's loss--but we are also even more committed to following his legacy. My heart and my prayers go out to his loving wife, Kim, herself a faithful champion of working families, his sons Eric and Benjamin, and to the rest of his family and his multitude of friends.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dedicated public servant from the Ninth Congressional District of Illinois, Mayor Arlene Mulder of Arlington Heights, a Chicago suburb with a population of approximately 77,000 residents. In May, she will conclude her successful service as Mayor after two decades in office. A longtime Arlington Heights resident, Ms. Mulder has exemplified the ethic of public service throughout her illustrious 35-year career. After establishing herself as a secondary educator and high school basketball coach, she entered public office in 1979 as a member of the Arlington Heights Park District. After twelve years with the Park District, during which time she served as commissioner and then as president, Mayor Mulder served two years as a village trustee. She was elected mayor in 1993. Ms. Mulder's mayoral leadership has been nothing short of exemplary. Her administration was instrumental in the revitalization of downtown Arlington Heights, which now boasts a thriving arts and cultural scene. In addition, she has provided vital leadership in her capacity as the chair of the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, an organization that advocates for the reduction of aircraft noise in the communities around O'Hare International Airport. In addition to serving as ONCC chair, Mayor Mulder is the vice president of the Illinois Municipal League, an executive board member of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and secretary of Metra, the Chicago area commuter rail service. She is also active in a host of other community organizations, including the Arlington Heights Women's Club, the AAUW, the BPW, Allied Arts, NWCH Auxiliary, Historical Society, the United Way, and the Boy Scouts Council. She is an established and highly respected presence in Arlington Heights, where she is known to make daily public appearances around town. Mayor Mulder has represented her community with distinction and has been a strong voice for the Village of Arlington Heights throughout her time in office. Her distinguished service to the people of Cook County is truly commendable. Although retiring as Mayor, Arlington Heights will continue to benefit from her abundant community involvement. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Mayor Mulder on 35 years of public service and in wishing her all the best for the days ahead.