Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I do urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. We can and should do better, and I'm hopeful that we still will do better.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I sincerely want to thank the chair and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee and express my appreciation for all of their efforts to work in a bipartisan manner and to address the concerns raised by me, by civil liberties groups, and by the White House. However, I rise today in opposition to the bill. While I strongly believe that we need to address the serious cybersecurity threat--there is no question about that--I think we can do it without compromising our civil liberties. Despite some positive changes, I feel this bill fails to adequately safeguard the privacy of Americans. Cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive, and this bill fails to achieve a balance between protecting our networks and safeguarding our liberties. Yesterday, I offered an amendment that would have made critical advances toward protecting privacy. My amendment would have required that companies report cyber threat information directly to civilian agencies, maintaining the longstanding tradition that the military doesn't operate on U.S. soil or collect information of American citizens. Another important amendment offered by Congressman Schiff would have required companies to make ``reasonable efforts'' to remove personal information before sharing cyber threat information. Unfortunately, those critical amendments were not made in order. Yesterday, the Obama administration expressed ongoing concerns about this legislation, issuing a veto threat. I share the President's concern--despite positive changes, this bill falls short in several key ways. As written right now, and hopefully there still may be some changes, CISPA allows the military to directly collect personal information on American citizens. It fails to safeguard privacy of Americans and grants sweeping immunity to companies for decisions made based on cyber information, prohibiting consumers from holding companies accountable for reckless actions and negligence.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you so much for organizing this Special Order. I want to thank my colleague, Representative Frankel from Florida, for bringing us together. I notice we're wearing the colors of the Israeli flag today in celebration of the 65th birthday, the anniversary of the State of Israel. I, too, when I walked over to the Capitol, our gleaming Capitol today, I saw our flag at half-mast, recognizing the tragedy that happened in Boston today; and I, too, want to acknowledge and give my condolences to those families of the two that we know that have been lost, have been killed, and I wish well the dozens more that have been injured. I do believe in what the President said, that whoever did this will be brought to justice. So, along with Israelis and their friends around the world, we are also at a moment of celebration, celebrating the renewal of the Jewish state in the land of Israel. For 65 years, our two nations have enjoyed a close friendship as well as a strategic alliance. Since the United States became the first country to recognize Israel a mere 11 minutes after her founding, President Truman recognized Israel as a state, and that relationship and that bond has continued to grow and strengthen. Rooted in shared ideals and dreams, as well as common global threats, the United States-Israel relationship remains as critical today as it was in 1948. As a Jew and a Member of Congress, I have a strong personal connection to the State of Israel, and I'm committed to continuously working to grow and strengthen that U.S.-Israel relationship. And even in the face of terrorism and war, Israel has become a leader in technology and energy and scientific innovation. Those people who haven't gone ought to go and see the spirit of Israel, despite the relentless years of war and attack and terrorist bombings. This is a resilient people looking to find joy in everyday life and looking forward to the future. I traveled to Israel this past February, and like I had been on previous trips, I was struck for the need for a peaceful future for the Israeli people. It's my wish today, on the celebration of the anniversary, that the years to come will show a time of peace. We need peace. Israelis paused on Remembrance Day, which ended at sunset in Israel, to commemorate the over 20,000 Israelis who have given their lives in defense of the Jewish state, as well as the thousands more that were killed in terrorist attacks. Even as we celebrate Israel's history, we remember those who gave their lives for their country. As we continue to stand with the Israeli Government in the face of threats and terrorism, I strongly believe that the United States must also continue to work together with our Israeli partners to ensure a secure and peaceful future for Israel and for the entire Middle East. Israel is our closest friend and ally in the turbulent Middle East region, and the U.S. Congress remains committed to a safe and secure future for the Israeli people. There aren't a whole lot of things I can say with confidence that represent both sides of the aisle, but I can say that the support for the State of Israel truly is a bipartisan, a nonpartisan issue for Members of Congress. For over six decades, the U.S.-Israel relationship has been fortified by this bipartisan understanding about the critical importance of the relationship to both countries. So today, Congresswoman Frankel, as we celebrate the 65th anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel, we remain committed to a safe and secure future for Israel. Thank you so much for allowing me to participate in this wonderful hour of celebration.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate Holocaust Remembrance Day, or Yom Hashoah, and to pay tribute to the men, women, and children murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust. This week, we pause to join in solidarity to remember one of the darkest chapters in human history. During the Holocaust, six million Jews were killed, and countless others were brutalized, raped, dehumanized, and robbed. It is critical that, as nations and as individuals, we preserve the history of the Holocaust and the memories of survivors and other witnesses. The Days of Remembrance hold a deep meaning for me, as a Jewish American, and for my community. My district, the 9th Congressional District of Illinois, is home to one of the largest concentrations of Holocaust survivors in the country. An estimated 3,500 Holocaust survivors live in the Chicago area, all of whom are elderly, and many of whom do not receive the care and services they need. Skokie, in my district, is home to a beautiful Holocaust museum opened in 2009, a 65,000-square-foot facility dedicated to sharing the history of the Holocaust and teaching the importance of combating hatred, indifference, and genocide to current and future generations across the Midwest. We pledged ``Never Again'' but, over sixty years later, we continue to fight anti-Semitism and other forms of hatred and intolerance, even genocide. As we reflect on the tragedy of the lives lost and honor those who survived, we need to also pledge to do better moving forward. In a world where genocide, intolerance, and neglect are far too prevalent, we need to stand up against violations of human rights. We need to continue to fight injustice and protect people everywhere. This week, we pause to remember all those who perished, honor those who survived, and redouble our pledge to fight genocide, intolerance, and persecution wherever they occur.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support the Back to Work budget. The Back to Work budget puts jobs first, which is actually the best way to reduce our deficit. Jobs equal deficit reduction. Our budget will create nearly 7 million jobs and bring unemployment down to 5 percent in 3 years. It protects Social Security and strengthens the critical benefits of Medicare and Medicaid. Our budget responds to what the American people say they want: job creation, more revenues from those who can afford to pay, and smart spending cuts that target waste, not opportunity. A new Gallup poll released today found that more than three-quarters of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, support Federal Government efforts that focus on creating jobs. Americans don't want austerity or tax cuts, more tax cuts for the rich. They want jobs, good jobs. So you can vote for good jobs by voting for the Back to Work budget.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted: On rollcall No. 73--``yea''; No. 74--``yea''; No. 75--``nay.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, the Ryan Republican budget reflects everything that the American people rejected in the last election: asking nothing from the wealthiest Americans and rich corporations that ship our jobs overseas, while turning Medicare into a voucher program and slashing investments that create real jobs. Inequality is at its highest point since the Great Depression, and yet this budget would make it worse. Here's the top 1 percent. Since 1979, look at how their income has gone up--277.5 percent. This is the bottom 99 percent. You see a little bit of increase, but you see where the money has gone. Well, households making more than $3.3 million would get an average tax cut of $1.2 million. Those who make less than $22,000 would get $40, and a third of them would get no tax cut at all. Meanwhile, critical support programs for seniors and the poor would be cut, including drastic cuts to Medicaid and the food stamp program. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Ryan Republican budget. It's pure March madness, and not in a good way.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright. This Supreme Court case established that all Americans have a right to counsel in criminal trials--even if they cannot afford it. The Gideon decision was clear: American citizens moving through the criminal justice system deserve appropriate representation under the law. Unfortunately, fifty years after this case was decided, that promise of Gideon has not been fully realized. Today, ever increasing numbers of American citizens fall through the cracks in our justice system, sitting behind bars because they did not have access to legal representation. On this important anniversary, we must commit ourselves to ensuring that all Americans have meaningful access to legal representation so that they are not left at the mercy of a justice system that is difficult to navigate and weighted against them. As Michelle Alexander's explains in The New Jim Crow, ``tens of thousands of poor people go to jail every year without ever talking to a lawyer.'' An article by Karen Houppert in this Sunday's Washington Post describes how ``one man, accused of burglary, sat in jail for more than a year while waiting for an attorney to be assigned to him.'' I believe that those situations are unconscionable. Wealth should not be required buy access to a responsive justice system. All Americans should have ready, meaningful access to an attorney when their futures and interests are at risk. We must make sure that the services aimed at assisting the poor are adequately funded. Attorney General Holder has quite accurately referred to the ``crisis'' facing services that provide legal services to the poor. Today, public defenders have caseloads that are often hundreds of cases above the numbers recommended by the American Bar Association. With staff stretched that thin, the level of service provided in any one case inevitably suffers. As is noted in The New Jim Crow, ``...those who do meet with a lawyer for a drug offense often spend only a few minutes discussing their case and options before making a decision that will profoundly affect the rest of their lives.'' We must make sure that the attorneys who are assisting low- income individuals have the ability and resources to do so in a way that is meaningful and effective. We must also commit ourselves to broadening the scope of cases that warrant a right to legal counsel. Gideon applies only to criminal cases--legal issues like home foreclosures, job loss, spousal abuse and parental custody are not covered. Individuals in these situations may lose their homes, their livelihoods, or worse, because they do not have access to representation. While these cases are ``civil'' in nature, they often carry a very real risk of jail time. I believe that Gideon should be applicable in these situations, because individuals facing a potential loss of liberty deserve the right to representation. The Legal Services Corporation, which provides civil legal services to people who cannot otherwise afford them, received $70 million less in fiscal year 2012 than it did at its peak funding. This comes as the Legal Services Corporation is more strained than ever, helping low- income families dealing with the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. According to the New York Times, over 60 million Americans qualify for the Corporation's services, but 80% of the legal needs of the poor go unmet. Those numbers are disheartening and unacceptable and must be addressed. I urge my colleagues to read the attached articles and to work to restore the meaning of the Gideon decision by ensuring that all individuals have meaningful access to legal counsel. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 15, 2013] Indigent Clients Suffer as Public Defenders Struggle To Keep Up With Caseloads (By Karen Houppert), In 1961, an itinerant man named Clarence Earl Gideon was accused of breaking into a pool hall in Florida and stealing some liquor, as well as money from a jukebox and a cigarette machine. He asked the judge in his burglary trial for a lawyer. He was too poor to hire one himself, Gideon said, but he needed help with his case. The judge said the state was under no obligation to provide him with an attorney. So Gideon represented himself, badly, and ended up in prison. But he fought his conviction--all the way to the Supreme Court, insisting that there was no such thing as a ``fair trial'' if both sides didn't have representation. Monday marks the 50th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision in that case, Gideon v. Wainwright, which established the constitutional right to free counsel for poor people accused of serious crimes. Most Americans are familiar with this result, thanks to television and movies; police officers say as they arrest someone: ``You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.'' In the 1960s, complying with the ruling seemed quite possible. Sure, it would be expensive for local governments that had to oversee and fund such efforts. But the number of indigent folks accused of crimes was smaller and, arguably, more manageable. Cities and counties established public- defender offices, staffed by salaried lawyers who were paid by the city, county, state or some combination of these; they also developed a roster of private attorneys whom judges appointed on an as-needed basis, paying an hourly rate; and some contracted with a single law firm or attorney for all local public defense. It sort of worked. But over time the war on drugs, the ``three strikes'' laws and the lock-'em-up mentality of politicians have led to indigent clients flooding the courts. Courts are overburdened, and across the country, lawyers for the poor are routinely buried beneath crushing caseloads and working in underfunded offices. Without adequate resources, it's hard to hire the investigators, experts or paralegals to mount a good defense. The stakes are high--for the man on death row to the teen picked up for marijuana possession. Attorney General Eric Holder decried the ``crisis'' in indigent defense when he spoke to the American Bar Association last year. Programs across the country were ``underfunded and understaffed,'' he said. Citing ``insufficient resources, overwhelming caseloads and inadequate oversight,'' he worried about a breakdown: ``Far too many public defender systems lack the basic tools they need to function properly.'' The problems have been well documented. A 2009 investigation by the Constitution Project, the National Legal Aid & Defender Association and the National Right to Counsel Committee concluded that the system of providing counsel for the poor was broken and that defendants' constitutional rights were routinely violated. The groups drew from news articles, law reviews and myriad panicked reports that cities, counties and states had generated. Their report, ``Justice Denied: America's Continuing Neglect of Our Constitutional Right to Counsel,'' documented instances in which public defenders carried as many as 500 active felony cases at a time (the American Bar Association recommends 150) and as many as 2,225 misdemeanor cases (the ABA recommends 400). The recent economic crisis has exacerbated the problem. In New Orleans last year, the chief public defender had to lay off a third of his staff. Hundreds of people languished in jail for months, waiting for a lawyer to be appointed. One man had been there two months for possessing a joint. Another man, accused of burglary, sat in jail for more than a year while waiting for an attorney to be assigned to him. These shortcomings greatly affect people's lives every day. In Washington state in 2004, a 12- year-old was accused of molesting his 5-year-old neighbor after the boys had played a game that, the younger one said, involved the older boy putting his hands down his pants. The 12-year-old's overworked public defender advised his client to quickly plead guilty. The lawyer carried 240 other criminal cases, never spoke to a witness, hired no investigator, spoke to no experts, met with his client's family for less than two hours and failed to speak to his client alone once; the court ordered the 12-year-old to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, be tested for sexually transmitted diseases and attend sex rehab workshops. Six years later, on appeal, the state Supreme Court determined that the boy's counsel had been inadequate, and Washington is making strides in reforming indigent defense. But plenty of cases are rushed through courts around the country, with equally disturbing results. The crisis in our courts raises questions about how we as a nation define ``justice.'' Will we pay lip service to the notion that everyone has a lawyer to represent them in court? Will we provide a warm body in a suit and tie to stand next to a defendant? Or do we equate ``justice'' with fairness--and provide folks who are accused of crimes with meaningful representation? Is the country committed to a level playing field, the adversarial system of justice in which both sides are properly armed to argue and from which truth emerges? Are we committed to making the system work as it is designed to? In the 1800s, Mark Twain joked that ``the law is a system that protects everybody who can afford a good lawyer.'' In many ways, unfortunately, that remains true today.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Casimir Pulaski Day. I believe it is important that each year we celebrate and retell the story of this great Polish-American hero of the 18th century, and no one does it better than Illinois with our state holiday. But it is not just the story of one man. It is also true that when we celebrate the memory of Casimir Pulaski, we honor great principles and values that are just as true today. Principles like the idea of sacrifice for something you believe in, something much bigger than yourself. Casimir Pulaski was willing to risk and ultimately sacrifice his life for the idea of creating a new democracy--and today, young men and women are doing that very thing around the world. When we honor Casimir Pulaski, we honor our young men and women in uniform who are in harm's way even today. The lessons of this day include the importance of international cooperation, US--Poland friendship, and immigration reform. Casimir Pulaski made an amazing journey, considering the difficulty of travel in those days. He became, not just a participant in an historic struggle, but a great leader, a general, and helped shape the future of the United States of America. Young Polish soldiers are serving right now as part of a US-led coalition in Afghanistan and deserve our thanks today for standing shoulder to shoulder with us. When we honor Casimir Pulaski, we honor them too. And how many young Poles living here in Chicago are waiting for their chance to be Generals or simply wear the uniform of the United States or study so they can discover a cure for cancer or be the entrepreneur that develops the next new technology? But a broken immigration system is blocking their dreams. We can honor Casimir Pulaski by working to make this generation of Americans welcoming to the dreamers and all Polish immigrants who have embraced this country. I don't think Casimir Pulaski was asked for his visa when he mounted his horse and picked up his weapon. Today, visitors to our country from Poland should not be asked either. That is why, once again, I am a vigorous advocate for the Visa Waiver program for Poland. And by pushing for this change, we all honor the memory and heroism of Casimir Pulaski. I hope that this day will be one during which all Illinoisans and Americans will focus on the significance of this day and this one man on our lives in the 21st century.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, 80 years ago today, Frances Perkins was sworn in as Secretary of Labor. This is Women's History Month, and Frances Perkins certainly made history. She was the first woman member in the history of the United States to be part of the Cabinet, and still holds the record as the longest serving Secretary of Labor. She brought us the Fair Labor Standards Act, giving working women and men fair wages, limits on overtime, and the right to organize. She was the architect of the Social Security Act. Frances Perkins helped bring us out of the Great Depression. And as we come out of the Great Recession, we need to ask what Frances Perkins would do today. She would fight to raise the minimum wage. Almost two-thirds of all minimum-wage workers are women. Many are the sole breadwinners for their families. She would defend Social Security against those who want to cut its very modest benefits. So today, we take time to remember Frances Perkins. Her message is still relevant today. Our Nation is stronger if we give working women-- and men--fair opportunities and treatment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Violence is violence is violence, and women are women are women. For the second year in a row, the Republicans have advanced legislation that not only excludes additional protections for battered immigrant women and battered tribal women and battered gay women, protections which are included in the bipartisan Senate bill, but they've advanced a bill that actually rolls back essential protections that are already the law of the land. We have heard from law enforcement, victims, and victim service providers on the need to pass the improvements included in the bipartisan Senate bill. Last week, more than 1,300 organizations which represent and support millions of victims nationwide joined together and said to bring the Senate bill to the House floor for ``a vote as speedily as possible.'' We need to pass the Senate-passed legislation so that victims of domestic and sexual violence don't have to wait a minute longer.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues two documents that outline both the dangerous impact of sequestration cuts and how we could replace them in a way that helps, not hurts, the American people. The report, ``Protecting Our Nation from Bad Federal Budget Choices,'' from the Coalition on Human Needs, includes these key facts about the sequester's impact: 600,000 children and mothers will lose nutritional aid under WIC (the Women, Infants, and Children program). 125,000 low-income families will lose rental housing vouchers. 70,000 children will be denied Head Start. 4 million fewer Meals on Wheels meals served to seniors. 373,000 adults and children with serious mental illness will lose treatment. I would also like to draw my colleagues' attention to, ``Faithful Alternatives to the Sequester,'' from the Interreligious Working Group on Domestic Human Needs. I would like to quote from their document: ``We are alarmed at the growing economic divergence between rich and poor, creating permanent inequalities that are neither just nor socially sustainable. Over the past thirty years, tax policy has too often been used to perpetuate rather than address these inequalities. It is our responsibility, both individually and collectively, to respond to those who are in need--people living in poverty have sacrificed more than enough on the altar of deficit reduction. We need a more progressive tax code, where all members of the community carry their fair share of the responsibility, not only to ensure that we can meet immediate need while simultaneously reducing our deficits, but also to begin to address the astronomical growth in disparity over the last thirty years. . . . ``There are core challenges facing our nation: rising income inequality, persistent unemployment, historically high rates of poverty and anemic economic growth. These challenges must be addressed with justice. . . . ``Our approach to upcoming sequestration needs to be rooted in our values--a balanced approach that addresses the deficit crisis with justice and compassion. On the one hand, we need to be good stewards of the resources we already have, making judicious cuts to defense, earmarks, and other wasteful spending, while preserving that which is most important for the good of all. On the other hand, we must increase revenue, in order to ensure that this nation can meet our need to operate a fair and just economy, which serves all of our human community. The nation's deficit crisis cannot be solved through spending cuts alone--new revenues must be part of the solution. The need is great and the resources are abundant. The budget choices we make must reflect this reality.'' I hope my colleagues will read these important studies and act to stop these harmful cuts. We should ask those who can afford it to contribute more, not jeopardize the well-being and futures of low- income and middle-class families.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. We know from polling that most Americans have no idea what ``sequester'' means at all. In fact, one of our colleagues said that she was talking to a constituent who said, Yes, I am all for sequester. Let's sequester all the Members of Congress in a room and make sure that they come up with a plan. That's not exactly the idea. ``Sequester,'' which most Americans don't know the definition of, actually means that for domestic discretionary spending--the things that help ordinary people and communities and law enforcement--there will be about a 9 percent across-the-board cut; just a meat-ax approach. You can't even decide between cutting conferences or leave in the research into cancer at the National Institutes of Health. No, everything is going to be across the board, a real meat-ax approach. There will also be about a 13 percent across-the-board cut in military spending. That's what we're talking about. And if people aren't following exactly what the definition is, they're going to soon find out what it means in their ordinary life. In education, we're going to see cuts that are going to require the firing of teachers. About 70,000 little children are not going to be able to have their Head Start programs. Small businesses are going to find that almost $900 million will be unavailable to them in loans for their small businesses. We're going to lose about 2,100 food safety inspectors. How will it feel if we don't know for sure if we're going to have safe food available? And we've all been talking about the need for more mental health services around this whole issue of gun violence, yet it's predicted that about 373,000 adults and children who need mental health services won't find them available. Military readiness will be affected. We got some data on every State. In my State of Illinois, approximately 14,000 civil Department of Defense employees are going to be furloughed under the sequester; and that means reducing the gross pay that comes to them, citizens of Illinois, by $83.5 million. That's money that they won't be able to spend in our economy. Base operation funding for Army bases will be cut about $19 million in Illinois, and funding for Air Force operations will be cut by about $7 million. These are real cuts in military readiness. Vaccines for children. Does anybody really think that the way to save on our budget is to cut the availability of vaccines for little children? And does anybody really think that the burden of cutting the deficit should be on the backs of senior citizens? The median income for people over 65 years old is $22,000 a year. The average Social Security benefit is $15,000 a year and provides most of the income for most of the seniors in this country. Does anybody think there isn't one tax loophole that can be closed, not one more penny that can come from huge and profitable corporations that often pay no taxes? We have some of those huge corporations paying no taxes, outsourcing jobs, setting up their corporate headquarters in post office boxes in the Cayman Islands. Some of them are getting, actually, tax breaks, refunds from the government. Multimillionaires and billionaires can't pay a penny more, but we can cut the National Institutes of Health and research for finding cancer cures; that new drug approvals ought to be cut; that we ought to cut veterans services; that people ought to just wait longer at airports. We should even shut down some airports because we're going to have to furlough the air traffic controllers; that we should cut Meals on Wheels for senior citizens, that that's really the preferable way to go. I have to tell you this is just a crazy way to do business in the United States Congress, particularly since we have sensible alternatives. We have not seen one bill from the Republican side of the aisle that says, Here's our idea instead of these meat-ax cuts that are going to hurt people, and the Democrats have several bills we should be hearing on this floor.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the importance of federally supported women's health research; especially reproductive health research in regions of the country that have high contamination such as Superfund sites. The reproductive health effects of environmental toxins can have significant ramifications for bone, cardiovascular, neurological, and sexual health, resulting in serious health conditions such as osteoporosis, heart attack, and stroke. In the state of Illinois, we currently have 70 Superfund sites that could pose a health threat to nearby communities. While the Federal Government supports a strong portfolio of research into the health implications of exposure to chemicals at these sites, there is a noticeable lack of reproductive health research in this area. It is essential that Congress supports this important area of research. Northwestern University is developing one of the first major studies on the impact of Superfund contaminants on our reproductive health. The study will examine the reproductive health impacts of exposure to metals including zinc and lead that are present near a former zinc smelter site on the Illinois River near the Village of DePue, Illinois. The site is one of over 30 similar zinc and lead smelter sites across the country, so understanding the health impacts at DePue will help determine best practices for future disposal of those toxic chemicals. Northwestern has also spearheaded an effort to update the scientific guidelines that the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, uses to determine the threat of environmental toxins to our reproductive health. The Guidelines for Reproductive Toxicity Risk Assessment have not been reviewed or revised since 1996. I strongly support their effort to ensure that the scientific guidelines adequately account for the reproductive health threats posed by toxins to both sexes and across the lifespan. This will help ensure that the EPA has the most comprehensive and up-to-date scientific guidance to assess the risks of chemicals in our environment on our reproductive health. The environmental effects of toxins threaten the health of more than 10 percent of men, women, and children. It is critical that we increase support for research into the reproductive health implications of different environmental exposures.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the National Runaway Safeline, which changed its name last month from the National Runaway Switchboard. The NRS was established in 1971 to fill a need for comprehensive crisis intervention for young people in Chicago. It was conceived as a centralized organization with free 24-hour services, expertise in all youth-related issues and as an information clearinghouse of youth services. In 1974, NRS received an eight-month federal demonstration grant to establish a national hotline for runaway, homeless, and at-risk youth. The need for the service was clearly demonstrated over the eight-month period, during which time 11,000 calls were received. Since then, its capabilities and services have grown considerably, now handling over 100,000 calls each year. Since its founding, NRS grew into a national organization and expanded its crisis intervention offerings to include bulletin boards, crisis emails, and live chat. Recognizing that the term ``switchboard'' does not reflect the various ways youth in crisis can connect with its services, the organization has changed its name to the National Runaway Safeline. The organization maintains its holistic and expert crisis intervention model focused on addressing at-risk issues immediately. Its services remain confidential, anonymous, and available 24/7, providing a comprehensive connection to more than 10,000 different organizations and resources for at-risk youth and their families. The organization continues its service as the federally-designated communication system for runaway and homeless youth. As a strong advocate of helping homeless individuals and as a long- time supporter of the organization, I am pleased that the NRS will continue its mission to help keep America's runaway, homeless and at- risk youth safe and off the streets. We are proud to have this nationally-recognized effort housed in Chicago, and I congratulate Maureen Blaha and her staff for their vision and leadership. I welcome this opportunity to celebrate the growth, progress and impact that the National Runaway Safeline has had in the last 42 years and will continue to have in the decades to come.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, 2013 will mark the 10th anniversary of a unique and historical gathering of scientists from 15 Middle East countries: Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey and United Arab Emirates. In 2003, the first conference, ``Frontier of Chemical Sciences: Research and Education in the Middle East--A Bridge to Peace,'' was held on the Mediterranean island of Malta. These conferences later came to be known as ``The Malta Conferences.'' In each of the conferences, scientists meet for five days with six Nobel Laureates to work on scientific issues of importance to the region: Air and Water Quality, Alternative Energy Sources, Nanotechnology and Material Science, Medicinal Chemistry, and Science Education for All Levels. Since 2003, five conferences were held. By invitation from UNESCO, Malta V was held at UNESCO's Headquarters in Paris in December 2011. The conference was opened by the Director General of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, and followed by a speech by HRH Prince Hassan of Jordan on his vision for the new Middle East. Although acts of war and terrorism have destabilized the political and economic climate in the Middle East and around the world, it remains possible for scientists from opposing sides of the political and cultural conflict to meet in an attempt to forge relationships that bridge the deep chasms of distrust and intolerance. In the Middle East, it is especially important that stable, mutually respectful, personal relationships be created that will enhance research interactions and collaborations, contribute to a more peaceful atmosphere, encourage international development, help establish a more favorable environment for regional peace and security, and foster further growth in regional scientific and technological cooperation. This is the goal of the Malta Conferences. In 2012, the Malta Conferences Foundation was established as a nonprofit organization and my great friend and constituent Zafra Lerman was elected its president. Like other people who foster social change, she too had a dream. The fulfillment of this dream was the Malta Conferences. Zafra Lerman is a world-renowned scientist and science educator. She received her Ph.D. from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and conducted research on isotope effects at Cornell University, Northwestern University, and at the Swiss Polytechnic in Zurich, Switzerland. Professor Lerman developed an innovative approach of teaching science to non-science majors by integrating science with the arts, and with students' personal interests and cultural backgrounds. These methods have received national and international recognition. She has been invited to lecture on her methods all over the U.S. and around the world. For the past 25 years, she has worked tirelessly on behalf of dissidents all over the world. She chaired the Committee on Scientific Freedom and Human Rights for the American Chemical Society (ACS). At great risk to her personal safety, she has worked within the Soviet Union, China and other countries and has succeeded in preventing executions, releasing prisoners of conscience from jail and bringing dissidents into freedom. Professor Lerman has received many national and international awards. In 1999, she received the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics and Engineering Mentoring from President Clinton. In 1998, she received the Kilby Laureate Award for extraordinary contribution to society through science, technology, invention, innovation and education. In 2003, she was the recipient of the American Chemical Society's (ACS) Parsons Award in recognition of outstanding public service to society through chemistry. The Royal Society of Chemistry in England awarded her the 2005 Nyholm Award, and the New York Academy of Sciences presented her with the 2005 Heinz Pagels Human Rights for Scientists Award. She received the 2007 George Brown Award for International Scientific Cooperation from the U.S. Civilian Research & Development Foundation (CRDF). In 2011, she received an award for Stimulating Collaborations and Ensuring Human Rights by the International Conference on Chemistry for Mankind in India. The capstone of her career is her work on the Malta Conferences. The Malta Conferences are the only platform where scientists from 15 Middle East countries are collaborating and cooperating on scientific issues as well as developing professional and personal relationships with each other. The common language of science is used for science diplomacy, which serves as a bridge to peace, tolerance and understanding in the Middle East and improves the relationships between the Muslim countries and the U.S., and between the Arabs, Iranians and Israelis.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, John F. Kennedy said, ``When written in Chinese, the word `crisis' is comprised of two characters. One represents danger and the other represents opportunity.'' Those words ring true with regard to perhaps the greatest crisis facing our world: climate change. We face imminent and continuing danger, but we also have an opportunity to change course and leave behind a better planet for future generations. Global warming is happening. The ten hottest years on earth since 1880 have all occurred since 1997. According to the New York Times, 2012 was the hottest year ever in the continental United States, a full degree hotter (in terms of average temperature) than the previous record. More than 60 percent of the country, including much of the Midwest, experienced severe drought. Wildfires spread throughout areas of the western United States, and severe storms ravaged the east coast. We face serious danger. Over the next few centuries, sea levels could rise an average of 12 feet, swallowing coastal areas in the U.S. and around the world. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, drought and famine could lead to decreased water availability, increased starvation, and new instability in many regions of the world--particularly Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. This crisis presents an opportunity. This Congress has a unique ability to take leadership in addressing what is a planetary problem for us right now. We can act now, or we can let our opportunity pass by. The choice should be clear. I support a comprehensive approach to climate change. I was a strong proponent for the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which passed the House in 2009. That legislation would have introduced a renewable energy standard, subsidized important research and development of clean technologies and energy efficiency, and created a cap and trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It would have had a significant impact in curbing the warming of our planet, and I believe it should be the model for action taken in the current congress. As a member of the Environment and the Economy subcommittee and of the Waxman-Whitehouse climate change task force, I will continue to push for comprehensive and immediate action. I promise to collaborate with anyone from either side of the aisle to work toward constructive and meaningful solutions. We must act together to forge a legislative solution to this crisis while we can still do something about it. The time is now. This is our moment--all of us--Republicans and Democrats. We must act to preserve and protect the planet for our children and grandchildren, and for their children and grandchildren. We cannot afford to be on the wrong side of history.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Coach Andrew Trenkel and the Maine South High School Constitution Team for their achievement in winning the Illinois State Title of ``We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution.'' This marks the twenty-first time that Maine South's Constitution Team has won this title. ``We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution,'' a program sponsored by the Center for Civic Education, aims to develop critical thinking, problem solving, and cooperative participation skills through educating students about the American Constitutional democracy. During the competition, students participate in replicated Congressional hearings, present arguments, and respond to complex questions on the United States Constitution. The primary goal of ``We the People'' is to encourage civic proficiency and develop responsibility among the students of the United States. Clearly the 2012-2013 Maine South Team members have accepted this challenge and are working to become future leaders. Congratulations to all of the members of the 2012-2013 Constitution team: Coach Andrew Trenkel, Mark Abtahi, Jane Acker, Hannah Beswick- Hale, Elizabeth Black, Anthony Borkowski, Matthew Brendza, Patrick Devereuz, Claire Dockery, Renee Hannan, Natalie Kirchhoff, Rebecca Klages, Kevin Kohler, Philip Kulas, Michael Martino, Maddie McGrady, Jenny Mocarski, John Moran, Emily Murphy, Gibson Odderstol, Augusta Paulik, Tim Prinz, Paige Sammarco, Michael Solberg, Pavel Tamas, Jack Touhy, Justin Tomczyk, Dragan Trivanovic, Ryan Walek, and Henrik Weber. On behalf of the 9th Congressional district of Illinois, I congratulate you on your achievement, and wish you the best of luck in the national competition in April 2013.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the progress we've made in ensuring equal pay for equal work, and the 4th year anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Lilly Ledbetter performed equal work but received less pay than her male colleagues at Goodyear. Despite experiencing pay discrimination over the course of her career, Ledbetter was barred by the Supreme Court from challenging her discriminatory pay because she did not pursue legal action soon enough. Fortunately, this is no longer the case. On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law. This law restored an employee's right to challenge pay discrimination. Women today have the right to pursue legal action for pay discrimination whenever it occurs. Despite this victory, challenges still remain for women receiving equal pay for equal work as evidenced by the pay gap that still exists. Today, women are paid only 77 cents to every dollar made by men. And for women of color, that number falls even lower. African American women receive 68 cents and Hispanic women 59 cents to every dollar earned by men. This pay disparity not only affects women during their careers, but follows them into retirement as they receive lower pensions and Social Security benefits based on receiving lower wages than they deserved. Although today we take a moment to celebrate the restoration of the right to challenge pay discrimination, now more than ever, we must strengthen our resolve to ensure equal pay for equal work. Eliminating pay discrimination not only benefits women--it benefits families. In most American households today, women are either the sole breadwinner or essential co-breadwinner. Those families rely on women's income to meet the daily needs of the family--including groceries, rent, and medical care. As we celebrate the 4th anniversary of this important law, we must commit to passing the Paycheck Fairness Act now to take another major step in ensuring equal pay for equal work.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to discuss the importance of funding medical research for epithelioid hemangioendothelioma and other diseases. Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, known simply as EHE, is a rare cancer affecting both men and women of all ages, causing disability, pain, and often death. The disease causes tumors in the endothelium, often affecting numerous organs at a time. A study done by the American College of Chest Physicians states that EHE most often affects the lungs, liver, and bones, or a combination of these organs. Moreover, the disease causes a range of symptoms including pain, upper respiratory infections, bone fractures, weakness, and fatigue. The study also cites that while EHE is more common in women, men are more likely to die from it. Currently, there is no effective treatment for EHE. The American College of Chest Physicians study states that EHE does not respond to chemotherapy and radiation as well as other cancers, causing many sufferers of the disease to resort to surgeries and organ transplants to try to relieve EHE's painful symptoms. My constituent, Isaac Weinberg, is currently suffering from EHE. Because there is no cure for the disease, Isaac must have a liver transplant to alleviate some of the pain caused by it. Cutting medical research funding and limiting access to affordable healthcare would only hurt Isaac and other people suffering from EHE, as well as those suffering from other diseases. However, providing funding for medical research would not only help those with EHE, but people with other diseases, as well. EHE is a sarcoma, a type of cancer that is very common. Therefore, research for EHE would be beneficial in finding effective treatments and cures for many different cancers and diseases, potentially helping thousands of people. I want to thank my constituent and Isaac's father, Dr. Guy Weinberg, for establishing the Center for Research and Analysis of Vascular Tumors. CRAVAT provides desperately-needed research money dedicated to learning more about EHE. However, we cannot rely on private efforts alone. Federal funding is necessary if we are to make significant advances in discovering ways to treat, cure, and eliminate EHE and other diseases. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring awareness to this important cause. Cutting medical research funding will hurt thousands of Americans suffering from diseases both rare and common, and we cannot allow that to happen. Instead, we must provide the crucial funding needed to research EHE and other diseases, allowing us to find cures, save lives, and help families like the Weinbergs.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of the Family Medical Leave Act. Twenty years ago today, we took an important step to protecting workers that need to take time off to deal with a serious health or family issue. Since then, American workers have used FMLA leave more than 100 million times to address a serious health condition, including pregnancy; to care for a family member with a serious health condition; or to care for a newborn child, newly adopted child or a newly placed foster child. FMLA allows workers to take time from work to care for themselves or their loved ones without jeopardizing their jobs. FMLA does not a salary during the leave--an omission that needs to be corrected--but it does guarantee their job will be there when they return. In recent years, President Obama has signed into law expansions of FMLA coverage to our brave women and men serving in our armed forces and airline employees. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2010 expanded FMLA leave for military families to include coverage of qualifying exigency leave to employees and families in the Regular Armed Forces, and coverage of military caregiver leave to employees who are a spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of certain veterans with a serious illness or injury. The Airline Flight Crew Technical Corrections Act makes more airline flight attendants and crew members eligible for FMLA leave. Yet, despite those expansions, the United States lags behind other countries. A total of 137 countries mandate employers to offer paid leave, while 121 countries guarantee workers at least two weeks of paid leave each year. The absence of a paid leave requirement forces many Americans to choose between protecting their finances and taking time off to deal with a serious health or family crisis. Many of the employees who qualify for FMLA leave cannot financially afford to take leave without pay. 78 percent of employees who wanted to take FMLA leave, but did not, reported it was because they could not afford to lose those extra paychecks. Hardworking Americans--both men and woman-- should be free to take the family and medical leave they need without fear of emptying their bank account. The Family Medical Leave Act took an important step in ensuring workers that their jobs will be secure in the event that they need to take time off to deal with a serious health or family issue but we can and must do more. We must ensure that every job provides paid leave in times of sickness or family emergency.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I just don't get this discussion about the fiscal cliff. Republicans are saying that in order to raise taxes on the very wealthiest Americans--and actually, by a historically small amount-- that the price that has to be paid is to ask the poorest adult Americans to pay more, that is, to reduce Social Security and Medicare benefits. I don't get the equivalency that is being asked for: the richest to pay a bit more, and the price to be that the poor, the poorest, have to pay more. Seniors in this country have a median income of just $22,000 a year. That means half of all seniors are below that. They also spend an average, right now, of $4,500 a year on health care costs out of their own pockets. So I think that we have to change the debate here. There is a parable in the Bible that makes this point. When you ask a person with one coat to give up that coat, it's not the same as asking someone with 10 coats to donate one to the cause.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. As a mother and grandmother, I offer my words to the mountains of condolences to the families of the 20 children and the six heroic adults in Newtown, Connecticut. All of America is mourning with you, but we owe you more than our grief and our condolences. It is almost unthinkable that a school could be the scene of such horror. Parents across the Nation are worrying about how to keep their own children safe, and the terrible truth is that children in the United States are 13 times more likely to be killed by gun violence than children in other industrialized countries. We need to close the gun show loophole and require criminal background checks for anyone purchasing a gun--a proposal supported by 74 percent of NRA members and 96 percent of all Americans. We must outlaw assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips. These are weapons of mass destruction made for the military battlefields, not our neighborhoods. It is time to grieve. It is time to act to end the gun violence before we lose more of our precious children and loved ones.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. But let me just say this: the other philosophy, though, is that if you have a robust middle class of consumers who will actually have enough money in their pockets, middle class people, hopefully even including those who aspire to the middle class have more money in their pockets, that that is what's going to drive the economy. They're going to go out, and they're going to spend the money, and that's going to spread throughout the economy. Whereas, the wealthiest Americans may buy another yacht, but probably are just going to accumulate that kind of money and really don't do nearly what the middle class does to make a robust economy for everyone. When we all do better, we all do better.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That was a lot of jobs that would have gone down.