Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. One of the things that they say, that Paul Ryan says, We all have to sacrifice. Shared sacrifice. I believe in that. I think that's a good idea. But some people have been sacrificing for a long time. If you drew another line starting at the bottom left and going to the top right of productivity increases in the United States, that line would shoot way up because we have the most productive workers in the world. Productivity has soared. And yet where have the benefits gone for our more productive workers? Right here. And it has been deliberate, and it's been based on policies that have passed in the Congress, a partnership between government that's been hand-in-hand with the wealthiest Americans. And the rest of America--and you know what, the other thing is if you started up here and tracked union membership, you would find that line going straight down. When workers, as 62 percent of Americans agree is a good thing, have collective bargaining, they're able to help raise the middle class instead of having a disappearing middle class, which is what's happening now.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Today, the Republicans released their budget. Budgets are really moral documents, and Republicans have made clear that their moral compass puts hedge fund managers and big corporations ahead of America's middle class and senior citizens. Republicans gut education programs and investments in job creation, privatize Medicare, slash Medicaid, but leaving plenty of money to help subsidize big oil companies and to give tax breaks to those companies that put our jobs overseas. There is another way. I have a bill that would create new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires, still lower than those under Ronald Reagan, and would raise $74 billion in 2011. We can bring down the deficit, and we can do it while protecting programs that create jobs and that don't further burden old people, the poor, and middle class Americans.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of Amendment #21, the Latourette-Costello. I support this amendment because the bill we are considering today, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011, contains a provision that would undermine the ability of aviation and rail workers to hold fair elections for union representation. Last year, the National Mediation Board implemented a new rule that certifies a union as being representative of airline or railroad workers if a majority of ballots cast were in favor of the union. This was a major victory for workers, making collective bargaining rights more accessible for the first time in our nation's history. The bill before us today, H.R. 658, would eliminate that tremendous step forward by reverting to the old system which required that any eligible worker who did not vote in an election, for whatever reason, be regarded as voting against union representation. That is not the way elections for Congress are decided, it should be the way union representation is decided. That policy was out of step with our nation's Democratic principles and if it is reinstituted will make it harder for workers to protect themselves through collective bargaining, ultimately leaving many workers without rights. Collective bargaining rights give workers a voice at work--a voice that is not just able to argue for fair compensation and benefits, but for safer workplaces and practices. Passengers have a strong interest in making sure that workers are able to raise those concerns. With this provision, the Republican Party once again is engaging in union-busting. I urge all of my colleagues to support the LaTourrette-Costello amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a grave threat to both our economy and our democracy, and that is the disappearing middle class. Over the last 30 years, there has been a dramatic and deliberate transfer of wealth from the middle class to the very, very, very rich. Income inequality is now at the highest level since 1928. Wages have stagnated for middle and working class families despite enormous gains in productivity. Where has the money gone? This chart shows the change in the average pre-tax household income from 1979 to 2005. The bottom 20 percent--that's that number way down in the corner--of households saw their incomes over those 30 years grow just $200. Over the same period, the top 0.1 percent saw income growth of nearly $6 million each year. The top 100th of 1 percent now makes an average of $27 million per household per year. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of Americans: $31,244. Meanwhile, Republicans, who squandered a budget surplus, created a huge deficit with unpaid-for tax cuts that went mainly to the very rich, and whose policies allowed Wall Street recklessness to bring our economy to near collapse, are now demanding that the middle class foot the bill. Their solution to our fiscal mess is to gut vital programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and to make cuts in domestic spending that would cause an additional 700,000 middle class Americans to lose their jobs. In the next chart, you can see some of the enormous cuts that they are proposing: $1.3 billion from community health centers, the only source of medical care for many families; $5.7 billion from Pell grants, reducing the size of the grant for 9.4 million students who want to go to college; and $1 billion in funding for high-speed rail, important infrastructure projects that will create good jobs--thousands and thousands of good jobs. Once again, they are showing their utter disregard for the shrinking middle class and those who aspire to it by cutting important jobs programs and assistance programs for poor families. Part two of the Republican program for addressing our economic problem, and every other problem, is to cut taxes even more for the rich. Enough is enough. It's time for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. This isn't about punishment and it isn't about revenge. It is about fairness. Currently, the top tax bracket starts at $375,000, failing to distinguish between the well-off and billionaires. I have introduced the Fairness in Taxation Act, which would create new tax brackets beginning at 45 percent for income over $1 million, rising to 49 percent for income of $1 billion a year or more; and, yes, there are people in our country who made $1 billion or more just last year. Historically, these rates are relatively modest. During most of the Reagan administration, the top tax rate was 50 percent; and in previous decades, the top tax rate was as high as 94 percent. My bill would also address a fundamental inequality in our current law by taxing capital gains and dividends at ordinary income rates in those brackets. Rich hedge fund managers should not be paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries because much of the income of the hedge fund manager is capital gains and dividends. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the Fairness in Taxation Act will raise more than $78.9 billion if enacted in 2011, allowing us to avoid the harsh cuts that will hurt the middle class. This is an idea that Americans support. In a recent poll, 81 percent of respondents supported placing a surtax on Federal income for those who make more than $1 million per year in order to reduce the deficit. Passing the Fairness in Taxation Act will allow us to stop the war on the middle class, restore fiscal integrity and fairness, and fund initiatives that reflect our American values and goals.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Friday, March 25, marks the 100th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. The deaths of 146 workers--mostly young women--were avoidable. If the owners of the factory had not locked the doors to the stairwells and exits, if they had installed a stable fire escape or put in sprinklers, many of those lives would not have been painfully and tragically lost. The International Ladies Garment Workers Union didn't just mourn the victims--they organized. Their activism resulted in the passage of major worker protections--not just new fire-safety laws but laws against the 7-day work weeks and child labor. The Triangle tragedy helped expand the right to union representation--a voice at work. One hundred years later, we confront a coordinated effort to roll back those hard-fought gains. Just as the Triangle fire spurred people into action, the anti-working family agenda of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has mobilized millions. The message is clear: We will not go back.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, Friday, March 25th, marks the 100th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire. The tragedy of the Triangle fire is not just the deaths of 146 workers--mostly young women in their teens and early twenties--but the fact that those deaths were avoidable. If the owners of the factory hadn't locked the doors to the stairwells and exits, if they had installed a stable fire escape or put in sprinklers, many of those lives would not have been painfully and tragically lost. If the owners of the factory hadn't fought long and hard against their employees' right to join a union of their choice, those workers might not have been locked in and prevented from fleeing the fire, as the owners were able to do themselves. The depictions of the tragedy by eyewitnesses are difficult to read. The fire broke out on the Saturday afternoon, at the end of the workday. Survivor Yetta Lubitz said that the warning and the fire arrived at the same time. Within three minutes, the only unlocked exit was blocked and the fire escape soon twisted and collapsed from the heat. Within 30 minutes, 146 lives were lost, including sixty-two people who died by jumping or falling from the ninth floor. The International Ladies Garments Workers, the National Women's Trade Union League, and other unions didn't just mourn the victims--they organized. The day after the fire, 15,000 shirtwaist workers demonstrated in support for a 52-hour week and a 20 percent pay raise. On Sunday, thousands gathered at the Metropolitan Opera House and passed a resolution calling for a Bureau of Fire Prevention and a permanent citizens' committee to push for labor reforms. Soon after, Governor Al Smith acted to create the Factory Investigating Commission, chaired by Robert Wagner, who would become a U.S. Senator and the sponsor of the National Labor Relations Act. One of its key investigator staffers was Frances Perkins, who became Secretary of Labor, The impetus for reform came from the workers themselves. Their activism resulted in the passage of major worker protections not just new fire safety laws but laws against 7-day work weeks and child labor. The Triangle tragedy resulted in more workers having the right to union representation, collective bargaining rights, and a voice at work. In 1961, on the 50th anniversary of the Triangle fire, ILGWU President David Dubinsky attended the memorial service and said, ``We want a fitting memorial to the martyrs we honor today. No better one can be found than to increase the respect for and the safety of workers.'' 100 years later, those words continue to ring true. Today, we confront a coordinated effort to roll back the hard fought gains that were won not just because of the horrific nature of the tragedy that occurred but because of the organizing power of unions, workers and their supporters. Just as the Triangle Fire spurred people into action, the anti-working family agenda of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has mobilized millions. The message is clear: we will not go back to the days when workers had no voice, no dignity and no safety. We will not go back.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I do. First of all, let me thank you for focusing not just tonight but so many days on the floor of this House on jobs, especially since the new majority has done nothing, absolutely nothing to create jobs for the American people since they have been in charge and, instead, want to gut Federal programs in a way that economists say will eliminate jobs and slow our economic recovery and put hardship on the American people. Yes. I do want to say, first of all, that Democrats have a plan, and we know what it takes to make investments by building strong infrastructure and what our plan is called. And I want to thank our leader, the whip, Steny Hoyer, for summarizing it in the best way possible, and that is: Make it in America. I know he will talk about that, that we mean both making stuff here, which we ought to do, and I think Americans everywhere--and certainly in my district, they start nodding as soon as I say, ``We need to make it in America,'' and everybody, regardless of party, regardless of income starts to nod. But this week, I am reintroducing a bill that I have had called the Patriot Corporations of America Act, which provides incentives to and rewards companies that are good corporate citizens of the United States of America. Right now, sadly, the United States gives billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks and government contracts to companies that outsource jobs, that exploit workers, that avoid their fair share of taxes. And this only encourages those companies to invest abroad instead of making it in America and using the best workers in the world--American workers. The Patriot Corporations of America Act would help us reverse course by providing incentives to companies that create a real partnership with American workers and invest in our economic future. It would be paid for, this legislation, by closing corporate offshoring loopholes and reining in some of the new tax breaks for millionaires. This bill would reward companies that voluntarily meet the following patriotic standards by moving them to the front of the line for government contracts and giving them a 5 percent reduction in their taxable income. To qualify as a patriot corporation, businesses must produce at least 90 percent of their goods and services in the United States; spend at least 50 percent of their research and development budgets in the United States; limit top executive pay to no greater than 100 times that of their lowest compensated full-time workers-- pretty generous, actually; contribute at least 5 percent of payroll to a portable pension fund; pay at least 70 percent of the cost of health insurance premiums; maintain neutrality and employee organizing drives; and comply with Federal regulations regarding the environment, workplace safety, consumer protections, and labor relations, which they're supposed to do anyway. So I think it's time for the United States to reward companies that show a dedication to the American workforce, and that's why I call it the Patriot Corporations of America Act. I certainly would invite all my friends on both sides of the aisle to support this kind of legislation that helps to make it in America.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Ask Americans if we should reduce government spending and most say yes. I agree. But let's dig a little deeper. Let's make the kind of choices that families make. H.R. 1 that the Republicans have offered in cuts will result in 218,000 fewer children getting the proven benefits of a preschool program called Head Start. H.R. 1, at the same time, does nothing to cut the $4 billion that we are giving every year to the Big Oil companies. If we want to talk about oil prices, our taxpayers give $4 billion to the wealthiest corporations in the history of the world. We are cutting about $5.7 billion from Pell Grants in H.R. 1. I voted ``no.'' What are we doing about billionaires who are getting tax breaks to leave to their heirs? Eleven billion dollars a year for the wealthiest Americans and their heirs. We have to make the kind of choices that help middle class Americans. We can tighten our belt, but we don't have to do it on the backs of the middle class.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the enactment of Illinois Senate Bill 3539, which abolishes the death penalty in Illinois. As a lifelong resident of Illinois, I want to thank Governor Quinn and each and every state legislator who courageously voted for this important bill. I strongly oppose the death penalty because I have always believed that the government should never take a person's life as punishment for a crime. This is especially true in our judicial system which is wrought with inequity and unfairness that can lead to the conviction of innocent people. In fact, since 1977, 20 people sentenced to death in the state of Illinois were ultimately exonerated. This is a shameful record that troubles me deeply. Imagine if any of these persons were executed before evidence could be presented to prove their innocence. The enactment of Senate Bill 3539 in Illinois is a tremendous step forward for justice. Already, Illinois had set an important example for the rest of the country, when in 2000, it placed a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Today, with the stroke of his pen Governor Quinn has helped turn the tide against the use of capital punishment in America and I sincerely hope that other states will soon follow. Mr. Speaker, the existence of the death penalty is not necessary to ensure that the most heinous crimes go punished and I will continue to fight for a fair justice system that does not use death as a means of achieving justice.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, the Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011. We all agree that the 1099 reporting requirements added by the Senate to the Affordable Care Act need to go. That is not in question. None of us wants to burden small business men and women with unreasonable reporting burdens. All of us are committed to eliminating this requirement. In fact, we could have and should have solved this problem last year, when the House voted on H.R. 5982, the Small Business Tax Relief Act. Unfortunately, all but two Republicans voted against that bill. That bill, like today's bill, would eliminate the 1099 provision. Unlike today's bill, however, it paid for the $24.9 billion cost of repeal in a very, very different manner. H.R. 5982, the Democratic approach, would have paid for reform by eliminating tax loopholes that allow corporations to ship jobs overseas. It would have solved the problem while also eliminating incentives to locate operations overseas. Creating American jobs should be our number one priority, and H.R. 5982 would have helped us do that. H.R. 4, the Republican approach, doesn't close corporate offshoring loopholes. Instead, it puts the $24.9 billion cost of repealing the 1099 reporting requirements squarely on the backs of middle-class families. It undermines the entire approach of the Affordable Care Act--to help individuals and families obtain affordable, quality health care--by imposing taxes on those who receive assistance to help pay premiums and cost-sharing requirements. Under the Republican bill, individuals and families who are eligible to get assistance at the beginning of the year are subject to taxation if they are fortunate enough to get a raise or a better job by the end of the year. Even if they are a few dollars over the eligibility limit, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that they could be subject to taxes up to $6,000 under H.R. 4. The assistance, by the way, is given directly to the insurance company but the tax penalty would come directly out of the pockets of families. The Republican bill not only would impose harsh penalties on middle- class families, it would also undermine the second principle of the Affordable Care Act: to expand coverage. Again according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, it would take away coverage from 266,000 Americans who would no longer take insurance because of concerns that they could potentially be required to pay substantial taxes the following year. I wish I could vote today to repeal the 1099 reporting requirements, just as I voted to repeal them last year. I cannot, however, solve the burden on small businesses by imposing a burden on middle-class families, particularly when we have so many better choices to pay for repeal.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, recently Dr. Ellen Chadwick, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Wilmette Illinois, warned about the severe consequences that would arise from cuts in critical global health initiatives, especially those that protect the lives and well- being of children. In her letter to the editor, which appeared on February 24 in the Chicago Tribune, she lays out the many reasons why we need to continue our modest contributions to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) program and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. As Dr. Chadwick points out, the United States spends less than one quarter of one percent of our budget on global health assistance, but the benefits we obtain are enormous. She writes that our funding ``saves lives, preserves families and communities, and builds extraordinary good will toward America.'' It is also an investment in global and national security, since global health crises such as the AIDS epidemic can destabilize entire regions. Like Dr. Chadwick, I believe that we can achieve our fiscal goals without jeopardizing the lives of children around the world and without creating global insecurity. As a member of the President's National Commission on Fiscal Reform and Responsibility, I put forward my own plan to achieve deficit reduction. My plan maintains global health funding and protects the middle-class and the poor here at home. Instead, it reduces the deficit by restoring economic prosperity, cutting unnecessary weapons systems and wasteful spending in the Department of Defense, raising revenues from those who can afford to pay more, and eliminating waste and other inefficiencies in government. I hope that my colleagues will take a moment to read Dr. Chadwick's letter and, after doing so, will reject the harsh cuts to global health included in H.R. 1. [From the Chicago Tribune, Feb. 24, 2011] ``Don't Cut Global Health Care'' (By Dr. Ellen Chadwick) As a pediatric infectious diseases specialist, I am gravely concerned about federal budget cuts passed by the House that will have a devastating impact on a group that cannot speak for themselves in the halls of Congress--poor children in sub-Saharan Africa. The House version of the annual federal funding bill ravages global health programs, reducing their funding by more than $1 billion, with most cuts targeting the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) program and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. Other programs that contribute to maternal and child health in developing countries are also affected. Cutting these precious resources will be measured in lives lost, as cuts will mean fewer HIV-infected pregnant women tested and treated for HIV, fewer infants treated to prevent HIV and more HIV-infected children without access to care, support and education. Finally, these cuts will result in growth of the population of children orphaned by AIDS, already estimated to be 16 million globally. Meanwhile, these cuts will make little difference in our budget deficit. The investments Americans make in global health see incredible, tangible results measured in lives saved. In 2010 alone, the PEPFAR program provided more than 600,000 HIV- positive pregnant women with antiretroviral treatment, allowing more than 114,000 babies to be born HIV-free. The Global Fund has provided this treatment to an additional 1 million mothers, and HIV treatment to more than 3 million HIV-infected people around the world. What is more, for every dollar we invest in the Global Fund, our international neighbors contribute an additional two, making our leadership that much more important and rewarding. After 30 years of AIDS, we are finally beginning to believe in the promise of an AIDS free generation in the hardest hit regions of the world. The House's proposed funding cuts stand to decimate these important programs, with deadly consequences. According to PEPFAR estimates, 400,000 men, women and children would be dropped from lifesaving treatment. Another 414,000 supported by the Global Fund would be without medicines, representatives there estimate. More than 32,000 babies could be infected with HIV every year due to reduction in services to prevent mother-to-child transmission. Without treatment, one-half of these HIV-infected infants will not live to see their second birthday. Even without these cuts, the unmet need is already great. Children in sub-Saharan Africa lack the same access to treatment that adults get--for example, in Uganda 43 percent of infected adults have access to medication while only 18 percent of infected children have access. Children with HIV are also especially vulnerable to tuberculosis, making treatment of both infections particularly difficult. Over the past several years, I have conducted clinical research and provided training to clinicians in Africa to increase capacity to care for kids. I have cared for many infants and children with HIV/AIDS. With antiretroviral treatment, I watch these children quickly spring back to life. Even more rewarding is the satisfaction of the new mother who is told that her child is not HIV-infected because treatment from pregnancy through the breastfeeding period has protected her child. U.S. support for global health--only one quarter of 1 percent of our federal budget--saves lives, preserves families and communities, and builds extraordinary good will toward America. The House of Representatives will not have the final word on cuts to global health. The Senate will take up the budget next, and can and must refuse to embrace these draconian cuts. I hope that Illinois' two distinguished senators will lead the charge in protecting the mothers and children in Africa whose well-being depends upon their actions.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I would like to say to the Republicans, be careful what you wish for. Your star is fading on this effort to repeal, to defund the Affordable Care Act. Only about 18 percent of Americans now are for full repeal of this bill. And are you the ones that are going to go and tell the American people that insurance companies can drop you when you get sick? Children with preexisting conditions? Well, they can be denied coverage. You go and explain that insurance companies can impose devastating annual and lifetime caps, and that pregnant women and breast cancer survivors can be denied coverage, and that being a woman will continue to be a preexisting condition. That's your mission if you were to succeed. In passing this legislation, the American people finally said, this Congress said, that health care is a right, that it should not impoverish individuals. Vote ``no.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, House Republicans have made their agenda really clear. What's obvious is that it's really not about creating jobs. It's not about addressing the economy, but rather the extreme agenda is to undermine women's access to reproductive health care and attack women's health providers that women rely on in their communities. We've seen an all-out assault on Planned Parenthood. Instead of attacking unemployment, Republicans are waging a war against women. This is not about Federal funding of abortion, and it is not about quality of care. This is about cutting off women's access to affordable care in an effort to score political points. This amendment does nothing to improve the economy. It will result in lost jobs, and it will take away the only source of primary and preventive care from millions of American women. Planned Parenthood, a trusted organization by women, plays a critical role in our Nation's health care system, and the Pence amendment would have a devastating impact on communities across the country. Planned Parenthood serves over 3 million Americans every year. More than 90 percent of the care Planned Parenthood health centers offer is preventive care. Planned Parenthood provides lifesaving cancer screenings, routine gynecological examinations, contraceptive services, immunizations and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. Planned Parenthood saves money. So this is not about saving Federal dollars. It saves money. For every dollar spent on the services I mentioned, and others, $3 are saved. One in five American women has received care from a Planned Parenthood health center at some point in her life, making it one of the largest women's health care providers in the country. And now is not the time to constrict women's access to and funding for Planned Parenthood. And American women will suffer if the extreme Republican agenda becomes law. Six in 10 women who access care from women's health centers like Planned Parenthood's health centers consider it to be their main source of health care. This amendment intends to literally wipe Planned Parenthood off the map. Planned Parenthood is an invaluable community-based provider, and it is critical to achieving the goal of improving quality health care in this country, including efforts to improve women's health, lowering the rate of unintended pregnancies, and decreasing infant mortality. I find it ironic, very disturbing, that the very same people that want to take away family planning funding and access to safe and legal abortions, which are not funded by public dollars, have also proposed a nearly $750 million cut to the Women, Infant and Children program to pregnant women and newborn children. This, like the repeal of health care reform, is part of the Republicans' divisive social agenda that goes too far. Now is the time to be working on the issues that are most important to Americans, creating jobs and improving the economy, rather than legislation that takes health care away from women. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Jewish Disability Network, a coalition of over 20 Jewish organizations, for its advocacy on behalf of the rights of disabled Americans. This February marks the third Jewish Disability Awareness Month, organized to push for greater recognition of the needs and concerns of disabled Americans. Jewish tradition recognizes the importance of inclusion and prizes the ability of every person to participate fully in their community. Today, over fifty million Americans are living with a disability. Tragically, too many of them face barriers that lock them out of employment, housing, education, or health care. They are denied the opportunity to be productive and our society is denied the benefits of their abilities. Only 21 percent of people with disabilities are employed full or part-time. One in six people with disabilities has not completed high school, 28 percent live in poverty, 19 percent have gone without needed health care at least once during the past year, and 34 percent lack access to adequate transportation. We are making progress through legislation like the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and through continued investments in IDEA, job training, health care and technology assistance. Those commitments must continue and we should reject budget cuts that would reverse the gains we have already made. We must strive for inclusion. A 2010 survey by the Kessler Foundation and the National Organization on Disability found people with disabilities are less likely to socialize with friends and family, to go to restaurants or to attend religious services on a regular basis. Jewish Disability Awareness Month seeks to focus on the barriers that create isolation and remove them. The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, a leader of the Jewish Disability Network, puts it this way: ``Stumbling blocks come in many forms, from less-than-accessible buildings, Shabbat services, prayer books and web pages to health care that is harder to access or isn't sufficient for people with disabilities. We are obligated to remove these stumbling blocks.'' Jewish Disability Awareness Month is an opportunity not just to highlight problems but to promote solutions. Doing so is not that difficult, nor does it need to be costly. One-third of disabled workers can be accommodated for no cost, and 80 percent of job accommodations cost less than $500. The average added cost for homes built with accessibility features is between $100 and $600, while retrofitting a home can cost several thousand dollars. Enactment of legislation like my Inclusive Home Design Act can help bring and keep people with disabilities in our communities. Today, the Jewish Disability Network will hold a Congressional briefing on ways to expand access to employment and education and protect the civil rights of the disabled. This month, congregations across the country will undertake activities to engage people with disabilities in their communities: taking disabled seniors to a meal or museum, providing lunch and learning sessions for parents of disabled children, or helping young disabled adults develop leadership skills in a social context. Throughout the year, the Jewish Disability Network works to put its principles of participation and inclusion into practice. I am proud of those efforts, and I encourage my colleagues to learn more about them. Again, I want to congratulate Rabbi Lynne Landsberg, senior adviser for disability issues at the Religious Action Center; David Feinman, senior legislative associate of the Jewish Federation of North America; and the many others who are leaders in this critical initiative.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

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

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Flake amendment, and I strongly oppose the underlying Republican no-jobs continuing resolution. If people out there have the gnawing feel that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and they're stuck in the middle and stuck getting the bill, the fact of the matter is they're right. This bill is just another example of the Republicans' true agenda, which is helping out big business and the rich while sticking it to the middle class and those who aspire to it. The cuts that they're proposing would actually cause a devastating wave of unemployment at the State and local level, particularly in the public sector. The Economic Policy Institute has estimated that passage would cost us nearly 1 million jobs. Who are we talking about? You know, it's cool these days to go after public sector workers, but what we're talking about are the teachers--I was one once a long time ago-- the teachers who teach our children and grandchildren, the very police who keep our streets safe and put their lives on the line, and the firefighters who answer our 9/11 emergency call. We're talking about workers who are the backbone of our communities. Over the last 2 years, the Democratic Congress and President Obama were successfully able to stave off a second Great Depression, but we're still in the early stages of recovery, unemployment is still too high at 9 percent, and American families are still suffering. The proposed cuts would cost us 1 million more jobs, be devastating to our recovery, and hurt Americans trying to take care of their families and make ends meet. Let's just take a look at some of the things they want to cut. How about the National Institutes of Health would be cut $1.6 billion? This is funding that goes to vital medical research, including cures and improved treatments for devastating diseases. High speed rail development, which would provide desperately needed jobs, but beyond that, reinvigorate a keystone of the American infrastructure, it faces $2.5 billion in cuts. In addition to the important jobs program, what really hurts is Republicans want to put assistance to poor families on the cutting board. They want to cut $1 billion for community health centers, the only access to health care for many poor families. And how about $747 million for the Women, Infants and Children, the WIC program? That's food assistance for low-income pregnant women and their children. The 300,000 beneficiaries in my State of Illinois receive a grand average benefit of $44.62 a month. That's it, per person, per month, and that minimal subsidy would be cut. House Republicans' proposals to slash Federal spending programs are irresponsible and indiscriminate, eliminating programs that create jobs and cutting assistance for low-income and middle class families. There is another way to deal with the deficit and to balance our budget. We need to enact a Democratic initiative to make it in America. We should be making things here. We should revive our manufacturing sector rather than providing tax breaks that encourage companies to go offshore. I offered a plan last year as part of President Obama's 18-member National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to make investments that get us out of the economic doldrums, boost job creation, and reduce the deficit--and not on the backs of low-income and middle-income Americans. We can do it. We need to stop the Republican efforts and protect job- creating programs that benefit the middle class and the safety net programs that help the most vulnerable in our society because that's who we are as Americans. The Republicans refuse to make the investments necessary to get people back to work because they refuse to give up tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Their policies are a prescription for disaster, one that puts families, communities, and our Nation at risk.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 514, which reauthorizes and extends provisions in the Patriot Act that I strongly disagree with. I opposed the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001 for the very same reasons that I rise today. As a proud member of the Intelligence Committee, I am confident that we can protect our citizens and do it without treading on their rights. Among the provisions extended in this bill is section 215, which allows the government to gain access to anyone's private, confidential records, including their medical, financial, library, and bookstore records, without first presenting evidence linking those records to a suspected terrorist or spy. It also fails to allow for court oversight of these secret orders, and prohibits the recipient of such orders from challenging the legality of the order for a year. I think that the challenge here today is, how do we balance the security of our country with protecting the rights of ordinary citizens? I know that we can do better than we do in this legislation, and so I urge each of my colleagues to vote against H.R. 514. Instead, I think we should pass legislation that grants the intelligence community the tools that it requires while protecting the rights and liberties of all Americans.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for the Northwestern University Dance Marathon, one of the largest entirely student-run philanthropies in the world. Created in 1975 by students at Northwestern, the annual Dance Marathon is just one example of Northwestern University's strong commitment to bring the university body together with the nearby community to raise money for a good cause. Last years' Marathon rose over $850,000 for charity and organizers expect an even bigger amount for this year's charitable recipient, the Children's Heart Foundation. I would like to thank all the dancers, supporters, and organizers of this terrific event. This year's Northwestern University Dance Marathon, will take place from March 4th through March 6th, 2011. It is a great opportunity to spend time with members of the community on behalf of a great cause.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met with everyday Americans in Chicago who shared with me their personal stories, tragic stories but common stories, about how our flawed health care system has devastated their lives. At its core, access to health care is a moral issue. Midge Hough told me how her 24-year-old daughter-in-law, Jennifer, and her unborn child both died because Jennifer could not find health insurance because of a preexisting condition. Her preexisting condition? A prior pregnancy. By the time emergency health care was mobilized, it was too late for Jennifer and her baby. She left behind her husband and a 2-year-old. Today, the Affordable Care Act mandates that pregnancy is no longer considered a preexisting condition. David Zoltan has diabetes, and because of his preexisting condition he couldn't get insurance after losing his job 2 years ago. He is holding the insulin that he needs to live; but thanks to the Affordable Care Act, David has coverage under Illinois' preexisting-condition plan and no longer ends up in the emergency room to get his lifesaving insulin. The Republican plan puts the insurance companies right back in the driver's seat to decide who they will and won't insure based on profitability, how much they will charge, what benefits they will cover. The Affordable Care Act ends insurance company abuses, creates rules of the road, and puts Americans in charge. The Republican plan is not health care. For millions of Americans, it means no care.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the Haiti earthquake, to remember those who died, and to pay tribute to the remarkable perseverance of the Haitian people. A year ago today, a massive earthquake caused almost unimaginable loss of life and devastation in Haiti. Some 250,000 people were killed, over a million displaced from their homes, and much of the capital was reduced to rubble. I traveled to Port au Prince in early March, and I was inspired by the hope and courage of the Haitian people, even in the face of unimaginable loss. In the days and months after the earthquake, Americans responded with immense generosity, donating their money, time, and expertise to help alleviate human suffering in Haiti. More challenges followed, however, in the form of violent storms, political upheaval, and a cholera epidemic that has already claimed the lives of over 3,500 people and sickened 150,000 others. Today is also a somber reminder of how much more we must do. The heartfelt outpouring of support from around the world in the days following the earthquake has not translated into meaningful progress toward reconstruction and development on the ground. One year after the earthquake, it is simply unacceptable that over a million displaced people still live under tents, while much of the capital is still covered in rubble. It is unacceptable that so many Haitians lack access to clean drinking water, sanitation supplies, and medical care. Recently, my good friend Dr. Paul Farmer published an article in Foreign Policy magazine outlining five lessons of the Haiti earthquake. I hope my colleagues will have the opportunity to review this important article below. We must work to build capacity in Haiti; work with the government to provide real, long-term development; create real jobs and viable homes; and foster economic growth and vitality for Haiti and the Haitian people. Mr. Speaker, today we remember those who were killed. We must also re-dedicate ourselves to providing real, long-term assistance and support for Haitians looking to rebuild their country. [From Foreign Policy Magazine, Dec. 2010] 5 Lessons From Haiti's Disaster: What the Earthquake Taught Us About Foreign Aid (By Paul Farmer) 1. Jobs are everything All humans need money--they need it to buy food and water every day. And no matter how hard the government or the aid industry tries, people will want for all three things until they are employed. The world pledged some $10.2 billion in recovery aid to Haiti after Jan. 12's devastating earthquake. Imagine how many people that money could employ, putting them to work on tasks like removing rubble (only 2 percent of which has been cleared to date), rebuilding key government buildings, and planting trees in a country that is almost entirely deforested. And yet so far, just 116,000 people have been employed in this way. Haiti has 9.8 million people, and at least half were unemployed even before the earthquake. If we focused our efforts on the singular task of getting them jobs--even if we did nothing else--Haiti's reconstruction could be a success. 2. Don't starve the government The international community doesn't know best. Local people do. NGOs like the one that I am lucky to work with cannot replace the state--nor can the United Nations or anyone else. We don't have the expertise, and we won't stay forever. We don't have the same stake in building a community that the locals themselves have. And if aid is to work, it can't fall apart when the experts leave. On this, almost everyone agrees. But the opposite approach has characterized Haiti relief. The dollar figures tell the real story: A mere 0.3 percent of the more than $2 billion in humanitarian aid pledged by major donors has ended up with local authorities. That money will hardly compensate for the 20 percent of civil servants who died in the quake. Some donors argue that the Haitian government is rife with corruption and mismanagement--and that infusing it with money will only make matters worse. But we need to strengthen the public sector, not weaken it. And that will take a working budget. It's impossible to be transparent and track your budgets when you lack computers, electricity, and even the personnel to do so. Until the government has the resources it needs, Haiti will remain the republic of NGOs. 3. Give them something to go home to Today, some 1.3 million Haitians live in tent camps amid often squalid conditions--yet no one has been able to convince them to resettle. Why don't they want to leave? Because there is nothing to draw them back. Many of these displaced men and women didn't own the houses that collapsed around them; they rented them--often under very unfavorable conditions. They were in debt to bad landlords. They had no schools or clinics. Enticing them to return home will mean providing exactly what they lacked before: housing, education, and health care. Ironically, Haitians are getting some of those things now in the camps. They have shelter in the 69,700 tents distributed by donors; they have the food and hygiene kits that NGOs offer. The tent camps may well become semipermanent homes if those services don't also exist in the cities, villages, and towns. 4. Waste not, want not At least half of aid money probably never reaches its recipients, eaten up by overhead; often it's even more. I know of no other business or enterprise in which this would be an acceptable operational strategy. Equally frustrating, sometimes the money doesn't show up at all. Of the donor dollars promised for 2010, Haiti has so far received a mere 38 percent, or $732.5 million, excluding debt relief. Nine months after the disaster, not a cent of the U.S. donation for Haiti's reconstruction has been disbursed; it's tied up in appropriations. Imagine trying to re-engineer a devastated country when your budget is at the mercy of political whims in foreign lands. 5. Relief is the easy part Disaster relief is not reconstruction. We haven't rebuilt Haiti despite giving 1.1 million people access to drinking water; we didn't remake the country with the 11,000 latrines that have been installed. ``Building Haiti back better'' means sustaining those temporary gains and adding education, health care, services, and good governance. What's most important in getting started? Economic growth. Yet it is a challenge hardly mentioned in aid documents or strategies--coming up only twice in the United Nations' most recent 44-page report. Poverty of the kind that was so acutely revealed this January can't be defeated until there is a brighter economic future for the millions of Haitians who are ready to seize it.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I am very grateful to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to mourn the tragic loss of six lives and the many who were injured who wanted nothing more than to participate in a simple but precious opportunity to meet directly with their Congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords. There will be time to reflect on potential remedies that could prevent or diminish the threat that has so personally touched us all, but today I simply want to send my love to Gabby and to Mark and the rest of their family. We have all had the opportunity to focus on you, Gabby, the brilliant, effective, warm, courageous person and leader that you are. You brought us together to focus on just how meaningful your friendship is to us, to me. I also want to take this opportunity to thank my dedicated staff here in Washington and at home in the district and all the staff that work with us. Thank you for your daily efforts and sacrifices, the long hours and the commitment to your constituents, our constituents. The tragedy of this event and the loss of Gabe Zimmerman and the wounded staff has brought home just how important you are to all of us and to everything that we do here. Let us take this sad moment to seek peace and love, to honor those who were killed, and fervently pray for those who were injured, including our beloved colleague Gabrielle Giffords and look forward to the day when she will return to us in full health.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituent, David Zoltan-Breiger, 33 years old, who now has coverage under Illinois' Pre-Existing Condition Plan thanks to the Affordable Care Act. David has diabetes. Because of his preexisting condition, he couldn't get insurance for over 2 years after losing his job. David is absolutely elated that he no longer has to wait for hours in the emergency room to get lifesaving insulin. Without coverage, the ER was his only option. Instead, he now has regular visits with the doctor and can avoid the medical crises that had become a frequent nightmare. What happens to David under repeal of the bill? He, like so many others, would lose coverage and once again be at the mercy of insurance companies. We cannot go back. We must reject the Republican call for repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 987, the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act. I'd like to thank Congresswoman McCollum and Senator Durbin for introducing this legislation and for their longstanding leadership on this issue. Child marriage is a true tragedy, as well as a serious human rights violation. Sixty million girls worldwide, some as young as eight years old, have been forced into early marriage. Child brides have little, if any, control over their lives, their bodies, and their futures. Not only do girls forced into early marriage lose the opportunity to attend school and develop as children, they also face serious health consequences and substantially higher rates of domestic violence. Girls who are married at a young age are also typically forced into early sexual activity, but their bodies are not physically suited for giving birth. According to the International Center for Research on Women, pregnancy is the leading cause of death worldwide for girls aged 15-19. Child marriage is often linked to a lack of education, opportunity, and resources. Girls from poor households are far more likely to be given away as child brides; some families view it as a way to guarantee their daughters' future, while others see girls as an economic liability. Either way, studies have shown that girls who are married before 18 are more likely to remain poor and less likely to receive education. We need to do much more to prevent child marriage. I am an original cosponsor of the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act, which makes preventing child marriage an international priority for the U.S. Government. This legislation requires the State Department, as part of their annual Country Reports on Human Rights, to report on countries with high rates of child marriage in their annual, and the White House to create an action plan on combating child marriage. Mr. Speaker, by passing this legislation, we take an important step toward ending child marriage around the world, and ensuring that all girls have the opportunity to learn and grow as children. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I want to recognize Nancy Chen, who is retiring after 26 years of service. Nancy is a remarkable woman who has devoted much of her life to promoting and creating policies to help working women and to empowering women and immigrants. Nancy led the Midwest regional office of Women's Bureau for 13 years. This is the only federal agency designated by Congress to address issues and concerns of working women. Part of the U.S. Department of Labor, its mission is to develop policies and standards to safeguard the interests of working women by advocating for their economic security and that of their families; and promoting quality work environments. Nancy directed and developed the regional program through collaboration and partnership with women's organizations, employers, unions, and other government agencies in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Under Nancy's leadership, the regional office has effectively promoted non-traditional occupations for women, including green jobs and careers in science, technology and engineering. She has helped achieve concrete advances in workplace flexibility and pay equity. Nancy's career highlights include public and community service in Illinois and Washington, DC. Prior to joining the Women's Bureau, Nancy served as Director of Asian Pacific American Outreach at the Office of Presidential Personnel in the Clinton White House. Before that, she was Director of U.S. Senator Paul Simon's Chicago office, overseeing the Senator's legislative and constituent program relating to Chicago and northern Illinois for 6 years. As a key advisor, she played an important role in Senator Simon's achievements relating to family immigration legislation and economic development in Chicago's immigrant communities. Nancy serves on the Board of Counselors at the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute. She is also a member on the Gender Equity Advisory Committee for the Illinois State Board of Education. Nancy's community service includes being the founder and past president of the National Women's Political Caucus of Greater Chicago from 1992 to 1994; member of the Illinois Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights for over 10 years; and co-chair of the Obama's Asian American and Pacific Islander, AAPI, National Leadership Council in 2007 and 2008. Nancy received the 2009 Milestone Award from the Asian American Institute and the first Sandra Otaka Legacy Award from the Asian American Action Fund, Chicago Chapter. She was the recipient of the 2004 Risk Taker and Enabler Award from the Organization of Chinese Americans and the 2009 Distinguished Career Service Award from the U.S. Department of Labor. Nancy is a skilled organizer, an expert networker, true public servant, and a good friend. Her advocacy and the policies that she helped create will continue to empower and strengthen working women even after her retirement. Her accomplishments are many, and I want to congratulate her on her decades of service to women and families.