Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that H.R. 658, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, will fully fund the FAA through FY2015, particularly because it will include the NextGen Air Traffic Control Modernization Program. That program is important to my constituents who travel through O'Hare Airport. The program will ensure that air traffic congestion is lessened, noise and pollution mitigation efforts are continued, and air traffic control is improved according to best practices. However, it is unconscionable that anti-labor provisions regarding the National Mediation Board were allowed to find their way into this bill. Organized labor has protected the rights and livelihood of American workers for decades. H.R. 658 changes the rules for holding elections, making it harder even to give workers the opportunity to have union representation. The bill makes it easier to strip union rights in the case of mergers between airlines or railways. It also allows election results to be challenged in person by employers, opening up union elections to voter intimidation. Those and other provisions will only undermine the ability of American laborers to be represented in their places of employment. They do not belong in the bill, and they will hurt rather than help workers and our national transportation system as a whole. I agree that the FAA, and the NextGen program should be fully funded. I voted against H.R. 658 because it injected anti-labor provisions into a reauthorization that should have been devoid of partisan political stunts.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, roughly 70 percent of us at some point are going to have difficulty taking care of ourselves independently, and we're going to need some sort of long-term care or support. So as the population ages, of course the need for these services only increases. I've been listening to this debate. On the substance, or at least as we identify the problem, there is an enormous amount of agreement. We all know that the costs associated with long-term care are very high, that nursing homes can cost over $70,000 a year, and that just 20 hours a week of home care costs nearly $20,000 a year. For working families, there are few practical options in order to plan and pay for long-term care and support services. Only about 3 percent have a private policy covering long-term care while the majority is forced to spend its way into poverty to qualify for the Medicare safety net coverage of those costs. We know this. We all agree on this. What the CLASS Act did was to address a number of critical needs, including providing a way for persons with disabilities to remain independent and in their communities by bringing private dollars into the long-term care services system in order to reduce the reliance on Medicaid without impoverishing individuals and their families. Mr. Chair, here is how: if a person must go into a nursing home--and those are the potential long-term people, Americans--if such Americans must go into a nursing home, first they spend down their resources, and then they go into a nursing home at a cost of about $80,000 a year. We all agree that the CLASS Act is far from perfect, but it provides a beginning framework to begin to deal with the problem. I got a letter from Jonathan Lavin, CEO of AgeOptions in Oak Brook, Illinois, a service provider. He emailed me, actually, to say: Please do not vote to repeal the CLASS Act. Such a vote will reverse the hope of millions of Americans that one day they may collectively insure themselves for the eventuality of a debilitating disability. When we see a young former Congresswoman gunned down and a healthy vibrant Illinois Senator struck by a stroke, we realize that any of us may suffer from a disability. A broad-based, effective insurance program will assist those who face such life-altering challenges. We understand why the CLASS Act is delayed in implementation since the economic situation is so dire, but we cannot understand deliberately acting to eliminate the potential for such legislation to do so much good after the economy recovers. Every American faces the reality that an accident or illness requiring long-term care could devastate them financially. While this issue affects everyone, I want to focus on the importance of the CLASS Act for women in this country. Long-term care is very much a women's health issue. Women live longer than men. Their life expectancy exceeds those of men by some 5 years. Because they live longer, women are at greater risk of needing long- term care services to help them when they become disabled or too sick or frail to care for themselves. Women tend to need more resources for long-term care. Women tend to be ill for longer periods of time, and women are less likely to have a family member to care for them. Over 70 percent of nursing home residents and nearly two-thirds of home-care users are women. Because women, far more than men, take on the role of caregiver, women are the ones who end up staying at home, sometimes giving up careers to provide care for a sick or disabled family member, adults and children alike. Indeed, women make up three- fourths of the home-care workforce. CLASS would help make these challenges easier. It would help provide the care women may require if and when they need long-term care or supports for themselves. It would help provide relief or a break, if you will, for those women who spend all day every day at home taking care of others in need of long-term care. To take away this program is to take away the first real opportunity that the women of this country have to deal with the long-term care challenges they face day in and day out both as patients and as caregivers. Like so many other Republican assaults on the Affordable Care Act, H.R. 1173 is, in fact, an attack on women and women's health. Like all those other assaults, we should push back and reject this one. CLASS is just one of the many advancements for women's health that is included in the Affordable Care Act. As you have heard many times today, let's fix it, not repeal it, so it can work for women and all Americans as intended. Instead of passing H.R. 1173 and repealing the CLASS Act with no effective alternative in place, we can and should work together to repair this program. Ignoring the long-term care crisis won't make it go away. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman. You know, there's a lot of areas of agreement. We all agree that we're in the midst of a long-term care crisis. We agree that today there are 10 million Americans in need of long-term care services and support. By 2020, that number will grow to 15 million, and by 2050, the number of seniors who need long-term care will reach 26 million. The costs associated with long-term care are high. We agree on that. Nursing homes can cost over $70,000 a year, and 20 hours a week of home care can cost nearly $20,000. But repealing the CLASS Act does nothing to address the glaring need for adequate coverage of long-term care services and support. The CLASS Act addressed a number of critical needs, including providing a way for persons with disabilities to remain independent in their community and bringing private dollars into the long-term services system to reduce reliance on Medicaid without impoverishing individuals and families. We agree that the CLASS Act is far from perfect, but it does provide a framework to begin to deal with the problem. So it seems to me if we all agree on the need, not only the need for long-term care but the need to do better, then instead of repealing the CLASS Act and passing H.R. 1173 with no effective alternative, we could, right now today, sit down and work together to repair this program. Ignoring it or even postponing this long-term care crisis simply is not going to make it go away.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember a lifelong educator and political activist. Chris Turney passed away in December at the age of 60. Chris dedicated her life to the education of children. Chris was a music teacher for 34 years, and spent the last 20 years of her career teaching at Lincoln Junior High School in Skokie, Illinois. Ms. Turney, as she was known by her students, shared her passion and love for music with many students over the years. She played a variety of musical instruments including the piano, flute, piccolo and guitar. She frequently used these instruments in her classroom. Most importantly, Ms. Turney inspired hundreds of children to follow their dreams. Ms. Turney encouraged all her students to believe in themselves and their own unique skills and abilities as they moved through life. Outside of the classroom, Chris was a political activist fighting for a better education system. Chris was a lifelong Democrat and very active in the National Education Association (NEA). She was president of the Skokie-Morton Grove Education Association, was the Region 36 Chair of the Illinois Education Association, and eventually became an NEA State Director. As a State Director, Chris was frequently on Capitol Hill meeting with members of Congress. Some of Chris's favorite moments in her life were shaking hands with President Clinton and then Senator Barack Obama. After retiring from her teaching career, Chris continued to be politically active. She served as the President of the DuPage Chapter of the Illinois Retired Teachers Association, a position she held until her death. She was an advocate for public education and for better schools for our children. Chris will be missed dearly by her former students, colleagues, friends and family. She is survived by her life partner of 30 years, James C. Keating, her sisters Judy Goldsmith and Linda Turney, and three nephews. She encouraged all three of her nephews to follow their dreams which they have done. Her oldest nephew Rob Goldsmith is currently an education and labor staffer for Congressman Bruce Braley. Jeff Goldsmith is a very successful musician who has written and recorded numerous songs and albums. Mark Goldsmith, the youngest nephew, is currently an engineering student and baseball player at the Colorado School of Mines. Her memory and influence lives on through them. Chris's memory will live on through the people whom she inspired for years to come. She was an agent of change to many. If you knew Chris well, she changed your life. Her uplifting, energetic, and positive attitude will be missed and she will not be forgotten.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I wanted to go back to this theme of a robust middle class. It's really in the manufacturing sector. It's really making it in America that built the middle class in our country. Yet there are people--and you hear it all the time--who say, you know what, these jobs are never going to come back. Just forget about it. We're not going to do this kind of manufacturing in America anymore. Why would that be? That is a myth that we have to bust. Of course, we can make it in America. We're not going to necessarily see factories where people are doing those kinds of repetitive jobs, and we don't want to see those dirty smokestacks come back. It's the vast manufacturing, the manufacturing for the 21st century and beyond, of clean jobs and of creating energy-storing batteries that we need and that we can export all around the world--the wind turbines that need to be built all over the world. Those innovators are here. Instead of turning it over to some other country--to China or some other country--to then make the stuff or create the supply chain, we should make it right here. With transportation costs going up as they have been, it's actually becoming economically advantageous to make it in America. That's why manufacturers are actually coming back, and we want to encourage that at every step. So the idea that somehow making it in America--factory work--is passe is absolutely wrong. That's what the Democrats have been saying, and that's what our Make It in America agenda is all about, that we are going to be the creators, the thinkers, the engineers, the factory owners. And do you know what? We actually have a succession problem in the factories that we have right now. Instead of thinking, in order to make it, you have to go into the financial sector, where absolutely nothing is made, we have to encourage our young people: go into business, the business of making things. Start figuring out how you can be a leader in a manufacturing plant, in the manufacturing process, which is going to lead this country in the 21st century. It is all there, waiting for us, if government will be a partner, not just creating the jobs but partnering with the private sector to make it all happen.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That's correct.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Understanding the future of this country, that if we are going to compete in a global marketplace, we cannot just be a service economy. We can't just have people working and making beds and flipping hamburgers and selling in retail stores. All these industries, all these jobs could be better jobs if they were better paid. We need to manufacture things. We are the center of innovation. We can educate our young people to become innovators. In fact, I had a meeting this week with educators and the founder of the Austin Polytechnical Academy where they are teaching young people how to work in advanced manufacturing and the new kinds of steel mills and talking about ownership of those plants. I wanted to say just a couple of things about what the President raised at the State of the Union address: So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed. My message is simple. It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. I have a piece of legislation called Patriot Corporations of America that would reward those patriot companies that hire 90 percent of their workers as American workers. They would get tax breaks. They would be able to jump the line for government contracts, and it would be paid for by taking away those tax cuts. I want to return to the issue of transportation that you raised, that my colleagues Mr. Altmire and Mr. Blumenauer were talking about. In fact, we have done something on transportation. My home State of Illinois, along with Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, California, and Washington State, received $782 million, my State did, for the purchase of 33 quick-acceleration locomotives and 120 bilevel passenger cars that will run on rail corridors in our States. Those trains will be designed to travel at more than 110 miles per hour between cities, will follow high-speed rail standards established by State-led Next Generation Equipment Committee. The committee will provide manufacturers with consistent specifications, reducing costs for manufacturers and customers. It is exactly the kind of coordinated government effort needed to address our transportation needs.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. No. This is high-speed rail, money that has gone to States. I want to point out that we hear a lot from the Republicans about how the President hasn't created jobs, which, of course, he has--3 million new jobs, 22 consistent months of private sector jobs. But Wisconsin, I would like to point out, refused to accept the money from the Federal Government for high-speed rail, $810 million to construct a new high- speed rail line between Milwaukee and Madison. As a consequence, a company called Talgo America, which was going to actually build trains in Milwaukee--and the City of Milwaukee invested over $10 million to prepare a facility for Talgo. The company hired about 100 union workers, and 80 percent of those had been out of work for more than 2 years. That factory is going to close down this year because Governor Walker told the Federal Government that Wisconsin did not want the $110 million in Federal investment. We are hoping that that company is going to move to Illinois to build those trains where we are more than willing to move ahead. What I am saying here is that, in a partnership between government at all levels, Federal and State, and partnerships with private industry, like a company like Talgo, we can create millions of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity in this country. Why we would see a reluctance, as Mr. Blumenauer pointed out, by the Republicans to fill this gap that we have between our need for infrastructure development and the millions of people who want to work, to make our country so much better and stronger and safer so we don't have the bridges collapsing--Mr. Altmire mentioned the thousands of bridges in his State that are not safe. We have thousands of them in Illinois as well. We can do this. We can do this together. Why the reluctance to partner, I can't understand. We can make it in America and America can make it in the world, continuing as a world leader. I thank you.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. President George Washington knew if we didn't do that, that we would not see the United States of America becoming a world leader or even putting its own people to work and being able to grow.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, I thank the gentleman not only for yielding, but for day after day, week after week coming to the floor and talking about something that resonates with every American, that in the United States of America it is time for us to bring jobs home and to have things that we make here stamped with ``Made in America.'' I also want to thank my colleague. Representative Blumenauer came to Chicago and convened, oh, it was maybe 100 people from all aspects of the transportation industry, contractors and actual workers, people who made the cement and people who were the engineers and would be involved in his project, Americans who are ready to work. And, yes, at the very dawn of this country we had an industrial policy. President George Washington made sure that we thought about and created a policy for not only importing from England, who we had just split from, but actually making things. He insisted that the suit that he wore for his inauguration be made in the United States of America. And it wasn't that easy to find that suit, but he did so that he would be wearing something made in America.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for H.R. 3801, The Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act of 2012, and also my strong admiration of its sponsor, my colleague and friend Gabrielle Giffords. Gabby will be stepping down from Congress this week to focus on her recovery, but it is clear that she is not stepping down from her commitment to public service and her devotion to her constituents. Gabby Giffords remains an inspiring example of how legislators can be effective in reaching across the aisle and encouraging cooperation between those who are often adversaries. America has learned a lot about Gabby Giffords since the tragic shooting last January. We have watched her deal with her grievous wounds with courage and determination. We know not just her strength, but her genuine warmth. America, like all of us who have had the joy to work with her, not only respect her but love her. I am sad to see Gabby leave the House--she will be sorely missed. I know she will continue her amazing path to recovery, with her remarkable husband Mark Kelly by her side. I look forward to working with her in the future.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the State of the Union address tonight is going to be very important, and I agree with President Obama that this is a make-or-break moment for the middle class and those trying to reach it. And what's at stake is the very survival of the basic American promise that if you work hard, you can do well enough to raise a family, own a home, and put a little bit away for retirement. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while more Americans barely get by, or we can build a Nation where everyone gets a fair shot, he says, everyone does their fair share and everyone plays by the same rules. We found out today that, especially when it comes to taxes, there really are different rules for the rich. Mitt Romney released his taxes. He made $42 million over the last 2 years and paid at about a 14.5 percent rate because most of his income is in capital gains. Look at the tax brackets. If you make $8,500 as a single person, you're in a 15-percent tax bracket. Is that fair? I don't think so.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. At just about this hour, the Sun is setting, and Jewish families around the country, including mine, are going to their Hanukkah Menorah--the festival of lights, the festival of a miracle that the lights lasted for 8 days. Usually, this is a joyful time--a beautiful, holy celebration. For many families around this country, this is a very sad and worrisome time, made worse by this day. With millions of Americans unemployed and relying on a meager average $286-a-week check while they look for work, Republicans voted today to not extend unemployment insurance, to not extend a tax cut for middle- income people who need it so badly this year when the economics were so hard. It just breaks my heart that at this holiday season and when people are feeling in such a fragile economic state that today's vote took place. It didn't need to. We would have helped the American people today. Happy Hanukkah.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Don't blame Congress for not working together; blame the House Republicans who can't even work with each other. The one and only reason this House of Representatives is not voting for the bipartisan Senate bill to provide relief to middle class taxpayers, seniors, and disabled people on Medicare and jobless Americans is because it would pass. That's right. The Republican scam was to bring up the bill supported by 90 percent of the Senate and then kill it. But on the way to this slaughter, a funny thing happened. Sensible Republicans basically said: You want me to vote to abandon millions of middle class Americans without the help they need this holiday season? No way. So the sanctimonious rhetoric you hear today from the Republicans is nothing but talk, baby talk. If they don't get their way exactly, then they won't play. What they're saying to millions of Americans, saying, Happy Hanukkah to middle class Americans who are lighting the first candle tonight and won't get their $1,000 tax break; Happy New Year to our seniors and people with disabilities who may lose their doctor; Merry Christmas to the jobless Americans desperate for work, looking for work, who barely survive on their unemployment checks. The House Republicans are the grinches who stole your Christmas.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, at this holiday season, it is proper for us to pause and consider the major threat that poverty poses to our nation, and how the path we take to address that challenge will determine whether we succeed in improving America's long-term social, economic, and moral well-being. Income inequality has risen sharply over the past 30 years. Since 1979, the gap in after-tax income between the wealthiest one percent and middle- and low-income quintiles has more than tripled. Adjusted gross income for working-class families has seen the least growth, and the economic collapse of 2008 put many out of work. Last year, 49 million Americans--including almost 17 million children--lived in poverty. One in four children in America is considered ``food insecure,'' sometimes going to bed hungry. That number is unconscionable. But poverty is not just a statistic--it impacts our families, neighbors, and communities in many ways. Shirley G. is a Social Security beneficiary in Harwood Heights, Illinois, who suffers from severe asthma, diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure. On September 1, she learned that due to state budget shortfalls, she would have to pay out-of-pocket for her medications. Shirley elected to pay her basic health insurance, rent, gas, electric and telephone bills and NOT buy food. She signed up for a ``meals on wheels'' program to provide her with one meal per day and relies on a local food pantry for her remaining food needs. She was also forced to ration her medication. The unpredictability of food and medicine has wreaked havoc on her health and she cannot stabilize her asthma or diabetes. Jack K. worked for decades as a taxi cab driver, but retired with very little wealth. He now lives in subsidized housing and depends on soup kitchens and food pantries to stave off hunger. Yesterday I met with two outstanding young people--Starnica Rodgers and Brandon Dunlap--who have struggled with homelessness their whole lives. During high school, both were what is called ``unaccompanied homeless youth,'' meaning they were underage and without a home. Against those odds, both Starnica and Brandon are now thriving. Starnica is enrolled in college and is an expectant mother. Brandon is a college graduate with a good job and a bright future. Both are incredible success stories, but they are the exception to the rule-- particularly in today's economy. More common are the homeless to whom I passed out sandwiches on a recent cold Chicago night, working with the Night Ministry. Too many Americans born in poverty don't have the tools to escape it. And too many formerly middle-class Americans are falling into poverty. We must promote and protect affordable housing, nutrition assistance, good schools, and other services to enable everyone to have a chance at the American Dream. We have a responsibility to reduce poverty so that no one has to make the choice between medication and heat, and so that every child has a place to call home and food to eat. We owe it to our constituents and our country to buffer existing social safety net programs so that Shirley, Jack, Starnica and Brandon can keep a roof over their heads and put food in their stomachs. I am troubled with the vitriol that many public figures have directed at those struggling with poverty and at the programs that give them a chance to thrive. This is a time when all Americans need to help one another succeed. The Half in Ten Campaign has set an ambitious but achievable goal of cutting poverty in half in ten years. I am an original cosponsor of Congresswoman Barbara Lee's Half in Ten Act, which would strengthen anti-poverty initiatives by creating a national plan to meet the goal of reducing poverty by 50 percent, eliminating extreme poverty, and eliminating child poverty over the next decade. This task will be difficult. It will require an honest assessment of the successes and failures of our social safety net programs, and make recommendations on how to improve the effectiveness of those programs. It will also seek solutions to the causes of poverty; income inequality, economic instability, lack of living wages, and lack of investment in low-income communities. Poverty touches every community in America, and we should be able to formulate a robust, bipartisan solution to the crisis. I thank Congresswoman Lee for her leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to come together in support of the Half in Ten Act.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Captain Erwin J. Korczynski, a Chicago native whose contributions to our country should not be forgotten. Mr. Korczynski passed away in January of 2011, but his impact on the nation and those who knew him will last forever. Erwin Korczynski was a quintessential American. Born and raised with his twin brother in Chicago, Illinois, Mr. Korczynski's youth was busy: he was an avid boy scout, marched with the Chicago Cavaliers Drum and Bugle Corps and was a competitive member of his high school's Track and Field team. After high school he pursued the priesthood, but in 1963, Erwin felt a need to serve his country directly, and enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. He served with the Marine Attack Squadron, VMA 131. While in the Marine Corps, he had moved up the ranks and attained the rank of Sergeant before he was honorably discharged in 1969. After spending several years of his life in the Marines, Mr. Korczynski became a civilian airline pilot. He flew for a number of different airlines over the years, logging hundreds of hours aloft as he piloted aircraft between six different continents. In 1990, Captain Korczynski was drawn to again serve his country. He volunteered to serve with the Civil Reserve Air Fleet and was sent to the Persian Gulf. Mr. Korczynski subsequently commanded twenty-five Civil Reserve Air Fleet missions during Operation Desert Storm. Mr. Korczynski's selfless actions on behalf of this nation make him a true citizen soldier, following in the footsteps of our nation's minutemen. His bravery and self sacrifice have earned him not only my admiration, but the admiration of the American people. In his later years, Captain Korczynski's passion for flight did not wane. While he was unable to continue flying commercial aircraft after age sixty, Captain Korczynski remained able and active, training future pilots and instilling the knowledge and wisdom earned through his decades of pilot experience. Captain Erwin Korczynski lived an honorable life, and he contributed much to the common good. On behalf of a grateful nation, I want to express our thanks for his life of service.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Coach Andrew Trenkle and the Maine South High School Constitution Team for their achievement in winning the Illinois State Title of the ``We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution'' competition. This extraordinary accomplishment marks the twentieth time in twenty one years that Maine South's team has won this title. ``We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution,'' a program sponsored by the Center for Civic Education, educates students on important issues including the purpose of government, the function of the Constitution, and the importance of citizen participation. Participants are encouraged to identify and communicate their own opinions, thereby developing strong skills in discussion, debate, and compromise. In the ``We the People'' competition. teams of students participate in simulated Congressional hearings, presenting statements and answering challenging questions about the United States Constitution. This year's victory of the 2011-2012 Maine South Constitution Team demonstrates their deep understanding of Constitutional principles as well as their aptitude for critical thinking and teamwork. Congratulations to all the members of the 2011-12 team: Coach Andrew Trenkle, Paul Ansani, Jeremy Apolinski, Austin Bryniarski, Ethan Campbell, Colton Cannon, Claire Floriano, Merrill Hester, Luke Kapolnek, Lauren Krone, Renee Kumon, Jimmy Loomos, Thomas Lis, Meredith Machon, Caroline Murphy, Kyle Richardson, Michelle Roberts, Allie Sakowicz, Daniel San Gabino, Matt Sherbahn, Katie Solberg, Sarah Tarabey, Caroline Unger, Maddy Vogg, Patrick Wohl, Alex Zaug and Lindsey Zawila. The United States of America was founded on the principles of civic involvement and responsibility. The students of Maine South High School have proven that they embody those principles and that they will grow to be passionate and capable future leaders. On behalf of the 9th Congressional District, I congratulate you on this outstanding achievement and wish you the best of luck at the National Competition in April 2012.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. As of today, the war in Iraq is over. This is a monumental day on which we must celebrate the service and sacrifice of the 1.5 million young men and women in uniform who served there and of the nearly 4,500 Americans who died there along with tens of thousands of Iraqis. We welcome our heroes home, and we pledge to honor their service with the care and benefits they deserve. For them I wear this yellow ribbon. I also congratulate and thank the thousands of activists who worked tirelessly for nearly a decade to bring our troops home. I thank the Illinois State senator, who, on October 2, 2002, stood before a crowd in Chicago and said, ``I don't oppose all wars . . . I oppose a rash war,'' a war, he said, which ``distracts us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income.'' That State senator was Barack Obama 9 years ago. Later, as a candidate for President, he promised to end the war in Iraq--a promise fulfilled today. Welcome home, troops. And thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Why did I vote against H.R. 3630 yesterday? I could list many reasons, but I only have 1 minute so here are three. One, the bill extends unemployment insurance for some jobless Americans and then drastically cuts months off of benefits for others, and it makes all who are unemployed jump through demeaning hoops in order to get any benefits. Two, in order to reluctantly give the middle class a payroll tax break, it asks seniors and people with disabilities to pay more for Medicare, but it refuses to ask millionaires and billionaires to pay one more cent. Three, the bill threatens public health by preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating dangerous mercury and other emissions, and then it goes a step further by threatening the public health by cutting the Prevention and Public Health Fund. H.R. 3630 is a political statement, not a serious proposal. What a statement to make--more support for dirty air and water, increased health care costs for middle-income people, and less help for those struggling to find jobs.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the C National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill because it fails to rein in our out of control defense spending, it includes over $115 billion in war funding, and, most of all, because it codifies dangerous detainee provisions that are at odds with the U.S. constitution. At a time when we are discussing drastic cuts to domestic spending programs critical to millions of Americans, this bill provides a whopping $670 billion in Pentagon spending--that's almost as much as the rest of the world, combined, spends on defense. We can reduce our defense spending without jeopardizing our national security, yet this bill continues what former Secretary Gates termed the ``gusher'' of defense funding. In addition, this legislation codifies indefinite detention without charge or trial in military custody for foreign Al Qaeda terrorists suspected of involvement in attacks on the U.S. It also blocks the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the U.S., even for trial. It severely restricts the transfer of detainees to third countries. Most disturbingly, the bill does not guarantee suspected terrorists a trial, even if they are U.S. citizens arrested within the United States, leaving open the possibility of indefinite detention. Passing this legislation throws fundamental rights of American citizens into serious jeopardy. These provisions are both dangerous and unnecessary. The Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence, and Director of the FBI have all publically opposed the bill's detainee language. Neither the military nor the national security establishment has sought the added detention authorities provided under this legislation. Military detention and trial not only jeopardizes our American ideals, it is also not practical. The role of the military is to fight and win wars--not to detain and try criminals. Since 9/11, military commissions have convicted only six people on terror-related charges, while over 400 have been convicted in civilian courts. Military experts have expressed concerns about the still largely untested military tribunal system, as well as the overall capacity of the military to handle a large influx of terrorism-related cases. Mr. Speaker, we can provide for the national security of the United States without jeopardizing our fundamental freedoms and rights. Even some of our closest allies, including Germany and the UK, have expressed reticence to transfer suspected terrorists or share intelligence about them over concerns that these individuals will end up in U.S. military custody. In his inaugural address, President Obama stated that we ``reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.'' This bill would undermine 200 years of respect for fairness and due process. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous and destructive legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Teresa Woodruff and the Women's Health Science Program for High School Girls, developed by the Institute for Women's Health Research at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, on their receipt of the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics and Engineering Mentoring. The Women's Health Science Program for High School Girls targets primarily African American and Latina girls from disadvantaged backgrounds in Chicago. The young women have the opportunity to study at four different Northwestern academies: cardiology, physical science, infectious disease, and oncofertility. There is a tremendous opportunity for women to make a difference in improving America's innovative capacity and global competitiveness. A study from last year from the American Association of University Women (AAUW) entitled, ``Why So Few?'' underscores the point that attracting and retaining more women in the STEM workforce will maximize innovation, creativity, and competitiveness. The AAUW study suggests that there are a number of ways to cultivate young women's interest and persistence in science and engineering, including mentoring. As Dr. Woodruff and the Women's Health Science Program prove, mentoring plays a crucial role in the academic and personal development of students--especially for young women and underrepresented minorities--who choose to study science and engineering. Of the 90 students who participated in the Women's Health Science Program, 18 are seniors in high school, 70 attend college, and 2 have received undergraduate degrees. Of those attending college, 51 percent are pursuing science majors. We stand on the precipice of major discoveries and advancements. We need more women and minorities in STEM-related fields to ensure that our workforce and the solutions they develop to solve the problems of today--and tomorrow--are designed better and designed with everyone in mind. There is a place for initiatives that motivate students to pursue STEM throughout their educational careers. With targeted action--like that of Dr. Woodruff and the Women's Health Science Program--we can remain global leaders in this vital field. Again, I want to congratulate Dr. Woodruff for this well-deserved award in recognition of her outstanding work to provide opportunities for girls and women to improve our community and world.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This bill is dangerous and its title is disingenuous. H.R. 1633 is about much more than farm dust. Our colleague Mr. Shimkus acknowledged that much in the Energy and Commerce Committee markup of this bill last week when he said, ``It is called farm dust, but I am here for my open- pit mines in southern Illinois.'' The bill allows major industrial polluters to emit unlimited amounts of particulate matter in violation of the Clean Air Act. Mines, cement plants, and coal processing plants could legally emit unlimited amounts of dangerous chemicals into the air. Let's be clear. The chemicals we are talking about are incredibly dangerous. Arsenic overexposure leads to skin, bladder, liver, and lung cancer. Lead exposure can damage the central nervous system, kidney, and blood cells. Cadmium exposure leads to severe respiratory damage. Zinc poisoning leads to kidney damage. Mercury pollution results in cognitive deficiencies, especially in children. Those pollutants, emitted from a range of nonfarm sources, could fall under the vague definition of ``nuisance dust.'' It seems to me that this is a piece of legislation that is being disguised as something as innocuous as farm dust, something that, as has been pointed out, has been regulated for a very long time. This is an effort to get around the legislation with a phony name, to get around the effectiveness of the Environmental Protection Agency. And we owe it to our constituents and our country to promote legislation that will stimulate the economy, which our environmental bills do, and protect and promote human health and the environment. Our colleagues across the aisle have failed in that regard, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Nancy Cowles, who was honored last week with the Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairman's Circle of Commendation Award for her tireless advocacy for children's product safety. This is the first time that this award has been presented, and I cannot think of anyone more deserving. Nancy is the Executive Director of Kids in Danger (KID), an advocacy organization dedicated to protecting children by improving the safety of the products they play with or otherwise use. In the more than a decade that Nancy has headed KID, she has served on the front lines, educating parents and caregivers about the dangers of certain products, promoting the development of safer children's products, and advocating for important legislative and regulatory improvements. She has worked on numerous issues both as a member of panels and as an outside advocate for safety improvements in CPSC standards and recall efforts. Nancy has played a significant role in the improvement of consumer product safety, ensuring that children and families have a voice and that product-makers are held accountable. In Washington, Nancy's work has served as an invaluable contribution to the creation of CPSC standards and the implementation of recalls, no doubt saving many lives in the process. She has served as an invaluable resource for me and many of my colleagues who are committed to protecting the health and well-being of children. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) became law in 2008, and it is the most significant reform of the CPSC and its responsibilities in decades. With Nancy's input, I authored several provisions to the bill, including mandatory standards and testing for infant and toddler products such as cribs and high chairs and a provision requiring that postage-paid recall registration cards must be attached to products. I am proud of those provisions, and the overall bill, which would not have been as strong or protective without Nancy's guidance. I would like to thank the CPSC, and Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, for recognizing the contributions of Nancy Cowles toward making products safer for children and families. As the Chairman said, Nancy's ``contributions to product safety are invaluable.'' As a mother and grandmother deeply concerned about preventing injuries to children, I could not be more grateful for Nancy's efforts and I am proud to call her a friend.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join thousands of activists participating in the 16 Days Campaign by speaking out against violence against women. Violence against women is a violation of fundamental human rights. It is a global problem of epidemic proportions. One in three women worldwide is beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused over the course of her lifetime. That is why I am proud to be working with Congressman Ted Poe to reintroduce the International Violence Against Women Act. The important bill would require a comprehensive strategy to prevent and respond to violence against women and girls internationally. Violence against women is not just a humanitarian tragedy; it is a global health menace and a threat to national security. The United States can play a significant role in protecting the human rights of all women and ending the violence against our sisters around the world.