Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 2 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, December 12, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, the importance of federal investment in research cannot be overemphasized. Our investment in research, including through the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Science Foundation, saves lives, improves health, and increases our understanding of the world that we live in. Grants to research institutions, including Northwestern University, University of Illinois at Chicago, and Loyola University in the Chicago metropolitan area, not only help to make medical progress but train our next generation of scientists.

Biomedical research funded by the National Institutes of Health has made a real difference in the health and lives of millions of Americans. The outcomes of those research efforts speak volumes. Anti- viral therapies for HIV have been developed that make it possible for HIV-infected individuals to live into their 70s and beyond as compared to a life expectancy of just months when the disease first appeared in the 1980s. New treatments and procedures have been developed for Age- Related Macular Degeneration that will allow hundreds of thousands of Americans to continue to have useful vision over the next five years. Researchers have identified a treatment that could reduce premature birth by 45 percent among at-risk women.

Public health research sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention helps us prevent and contain disease outbreaks. As we transition from a health care system focused on the treatment of disease to a system based on disease prevention, we will increasingly rely on public health research to identify new prevention techniques and interventions that help keep people healthy. For example, the CDC has established a research grant program to help develop and test new ways to combat healthcare-associated infections--infections that harm patients and increase health care costs. Through this initiative, the CDC awarded a grant to the Chicago Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Prevention Epicenter, a collaboration between the Cook County Health and Hospitals System and Rush University Medical Center, to research strategies for antimicrobial resistance and infection prevention.

The funding of basic research in fields such as chemistry, engineering, physics, and computers by the National Science Foundation

has led to discoveries and technological advances that have been truly revolutionary. NSF-funded researchers have decoded the genetics of viruses and created an entirely new state of matter. NSF-funded research is also enhancing our understanding of the link between brain health and overall human health.

These examples merely scratch the surface of federally-funded research discoveries and only hint at the promise of our continued investment in research. We can imagine the possibilities--a cure for HIV/AIDS, the elimination of health disparities, or the end of Alzheimer's disease. If we don't stop the sequester cuts, which include budget cuts of $2.5 billion to NIH, $586 million to NSF, and $490 million to CDC, or any other cuts, these discoveries could be severely delayed or even worse never become reality. We can't allow that. We must avert these cuts and replace them with a balanced approach that continues our investment in research.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of family caregivers and in recognition of November as National Family Caregivers Month. This month honors those caregivers who serve on the front lines of patient care. Every day, over 65 million family caregivers in this country play a vital role in helping their loved ones with daily activities such as bathing and eating. They help them follow their medical and treatment regimens as well as assist with their daily activities. Family caregivers help seniors to age in their own homes and delay or avoid the need for nursing home placement. Family caregivers also provide care for children and adults who suffer from serious illnesses or disabilities.

Family caregivers often make enormous personal and financial sacrifices to be there for their loved ones. Caregivers juggle the care of their loved ones with caring for their children, taking care of their own health, and managing their responsibilities at work. Some even leave the workforce to provide the level of care needed by their loved ones.

As we recognize and honor the contribution of family caregivers to their loved ones and to our health care delivery system, we also must recognize the need to provide these caregivers with all the supports that they need. Supports including information and training on how to care for their loved ones, respite care that allows family caregivers to take needed breaks from their caregiving responsibilities, adequate workforce protections for those with work and caregiving responsibilities, and adequate financial and retirement security.

I want to applaud all of our family caregivers and urge my colleagues to commit to working to provide needed supports to family caregivers.

Today, World AIDS Day, provides the opportunity to celebrate the gains made in the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS.

People living with HIV can now experience long and productive lives. Advancements in prevention have led to a turning point--the possibility, as Secretary Clinton said--of an AIDS-free generation.

However, cuts in funding to international and domestic programs could very well turn back the clock. We must take action now to avoid the looming threat to more than 1 million Americans, including more than 4,000 in my own district in Illinois who are living with HIV/AIDS. They cannot afford the $538 million in sequestration cuts that would affect our HIV/AIDS programs; 15,708 people cannot afford to lose access to crucial lifesaving drugs. So let's stop these cuts and move forward towards an end to this epidemic.

I want to thank you so much, Congressman Ellison, for pulling this together, because we are in the midst of an incredibly important debate about how to deal with all of these fiscal issues. Mainly, to me, it's about who shall pay, not about what are the dollar figures and how do we take a little bit from this and that. It's about who exactly in our society is going to be responsible.

I want to focus on the entitlements. In addition to some of our Republican colleagues--I'm talking mainly about the CEOs now, the fix- the-debt group, who say quite piously, by the way, and self-righteously that we have to cut entitlements. In listening to them, you would think that the United States of America is poorer today than it was 50 years ago when Medicare and Medicaid became part of our social contract, or 70 years ago when we created Social Security. Now they say it's unsustainable. Is it because the United States of America is actually poorer today than we were then?

I wanted to quote from something in The Washington Post, an article that Ezra Klein wrote, entitled, ``Why Rich Guys Want to Raise the Retirement Age'':

The first point worth making here is that the country's

economy has grown 15-fold since Social Security was passed

into law. One of the things the richest society the world has

ever known can buy is a decent retirement for people who

don't have jobs they love and who don't want to work forever.

I think that's right. It's like--really?--we can't afford it? This is one of the things that we absolutely have to cut.

I wanted to just make a point about some of these guys, these 71 CEOs who are in the fix-the-debt group who wrote this letter about the things that need to be done, some of which included the cuts.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Bailing them out, that was then. Get over it. Of course they got a lot of money from the taxpayers. Why do you keep bringing that up, Mr. Ellison? That was just a fine thing to do.

But here. The 71 fix-the-debt CEOs, who lead publicly held companies, have amassed an average of $9 million in their own company retirement funds. A dozen have more than $20 million in their accounts. So, if each of them converted his assets to an annuity when he turned 65, he would receive a monthly check of at least $110,000 for life. Now, one of those fellows, Dave Cote, whom I know because I served with him on the Simpson-Bowles commission--and he's a longtime advocate of Social Security cuts--has a $78 million nest egg. That's enough to provide a $428,000 check every month after he turns 65 years old. Since the average monthly Social Security benefit is $1,230, Dave Cote would receive a retirement income every month--by the way, this doesn't count his Social Security--of as much as 348 Social Security beneficiaries. This is a guy saying that those 348 people, who are together going to get as much as he gets, ought to see those Social Security benefits cut.

I just think it's outrageous because this is about who we are. Really? We can't afford today the kind of Medicare benefits that we had 50 years ago when Medicare went in or 70 years ago?

Here is the other thing. One of the arguments that is used is that life expectancy has gone up. That's true for some of us but not for all of us. Since 1977, the life expectancy of male workers retiring at age 65 has risen 6 years in the top half of the income distribution, but if you're in the bottom half of the income distribution, then you just gained 1.3 years. The fact of the matter is, if you are a poor woman in the United States of America, you have actually lost ground in terms of longevity in this country. So it is just simply a myth to say that. Averages can be deceiving, right? You get a basketball player, and you average him to 6-feet tall even though one is 7'2'' or whatever. That's ridiculous. People are actually losing life expectancy.

The truth of the matter is, while the Social Security retirement age is now about 67, you can retire early at 62, which is the earliest the law allows. You lose some benefits, but that is when most people retire. Now, these are not slackers. These aren't people who just now want to lie around at home and eat bonbons. These are people who pretty much can't wait until their full benefits kick in because they've been working really tough jobs, long hours, who've been on their feet, flipping patients in beds, working with their hands. It is not easy. So now what? Are these people supposed to go out and all find jobs--what jobs? Where are those jobs?--in order to wait even longer for them to get their Social Security benefits?

Frankly, I'm personally pretty resentful that some of the very richest people in our country, who are now offering advice on how we can save money and fix the debt, are offering up senior citizens, half of whom make $22,000 or less per year.

Those seniors who make $85,000 or more a year are already paying more for their Medicare benefits. We are already means testing Medicare benefits. A lot of people don't know that. So who are the rich seniors who are supposed to pay more? Who are the seniors who are living longer? Well, you know, Dave Cote and the other CEOs, they're doing just fine. They may want to work forever. God love them. God bless them. Let them do it and retire with tens of thousands of dollars every single month. And their advice is cut the rest of the people. That's not right.

Well, first of all, I agree with you because I think what

I'm hearing you say is let's put those--Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid--in a separate basket and deal with them at another time. Social Security should not be even on a different table. It should be in a different room, because Social Security has a big surplus in the trust fund and hasn't contributed one thin dime to any deficit.

Medicare and Medicaid, I'm all for making those programs more efficient. We can find savings in those programs. But let's remember, it occurred to me that Democrats, through ObamaCare, actually found-- does this number sound familiar?--$716 billion worth of savings in Medicare that made the program more efficient but didn't touch benefits.

We actually improved Medicare by finding savings.

It seems to me that number came up in the election that Democrats were somehow stealing from Medicare, implying to senior citizens that their programs were being eroded when, in fact, their programs were being improved and Medicare was made more efficient. So now that the election is over, they're back to saying we've got to cut these entitlement programs; they're unsustainable. We just can't make it anymore. We're too poor a country. We can't aspire to make sure that people with disabilities and old people are going to have access to health care. We can't do it anymore. That was so 20th century. We're done with that.

I mean, it's really outrageous, the hypocrisy of criticizing us for making the programs more cost effective, cost less, but keep benefits, and now hitting us over the head with that and now saying, Oh, no, never mind, we have to go back and cut those programs.

Other people. Not them, other people.

Here's Lloyd Blankfein, and he's just one example, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, and part of what I really resent about it is he doesn't even know what he's talking about. He says:

You can look at the history of these things, and Social

Security wasn't devised to be a system that supported you for

a 30-year retirement after a 25-year career.

Well, first of all, the average beneficiary collects about 16 years, so a 30-year retirement after 25 years?

I don't know what he's talking about.

So there will be things. Maybe the retirement age has to be

changed, maybe some of the benefits have to be affected,

maybe some of the inflation estimates have to be revised,

but, in general, entitlements have to be slowed down and

contained.

Now, you know, this is a guy who's a pretty entitled fellow. And the idea of him pointing to these people who, you know, half of whom make less than $22,000 doesn't sit well with me and, I don't think, most Americans. It's not just that I think; we've asked most Americans.

And, by the way, even people who voted for Mitt Romney said, Do not cut my Social Security and Medicare benefits. They don't want that. And it's not because they're stupid or greedy, as Alan Simpson would like to make them out to be. It's because, in this country, retiring with some level of security is something that people who've worked all their lives deserve in this country and something that should be a priority.

Tens of billions.

Well, frankly, I think that idea is alive and well and was reflected in the elections on November 6----

That the idea that we are all in this together, that we do have some responsibility. And I want to tell you that there isn't a person that goes to synagogue or church or a mosque or a temple that doesn't learn about, we are our brother's and our sister's keepers, we do feed the hungry and take care of the poor, that we have an obligation to do that. So in our private lives, and in our faith lives, we're taught that as well.

I mean, it's good economics, but it's also the right thing to do. And I also think it's a very American kind of ideal, and that, at the end of the day, that most people agree with that.

When I say under $22,000, that's income. The average Social Security benefit is far below that. And so we're talking about very little, very little money to provide not a whole lot of security, but some security.

You have the sign, ``The Progressive Message,'' and I

am a proud member of the Progressive Caucus. But I believe that if you presented what you just said to the American people, in general, that the vast majority agree with that because it's fair. That's all.

We are willing to find cuts, and as you pointed out, we've already done that. That's already been done with $1.5 trillion in cuts. But fairness means not just that starting from scratch, we cut everybody across the board, but we do it in a humane and fair and sensible way in our country. And I think the Progressive message is the American message, the one that we're hearing from the American people.

So I thank you so much for your leadership. And going forward, I hope we can help to mobilize, along with the President, mobilize people to support these ideas.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for yielding to me for a very important hour.

I want to begin with Elodie Michaud, this beautiful, beautiful baby and hope that everyone will think about Elodie as every child, as any child, as your child. Because what I rise to talk about today is the importance of protecting very important maternal and child health programs and research, some wonderful things that our country does to make sure that children like Elodie, regardless of their circumstances and where they live and how much money their parents make, will be able to grow up healthy and happy and productive in our country.

Investments in maternal and child health improve the well-being and quality of life for women and children and families all over the country while actually reducing government costs. So as we deal with all of the issues of the debt and the deficit, I want to make sure that everybody is keeping Elodie, and children like her and her mother and her father and her family, in mind and making cuts that really make sense and avoiding cuts that absolutely make no sense, that don't save money, and certainly don't make our country any better. The investments that we make help children remain healthy, achieve success in school, and become productive members of society.

While we all agree that we want to tackle our fiscal challenges, we want to make sure that we take the kind of balanced and sensible approach that reduces our deficit, puts our fiscal house in order, and protects the health of women, children, and families. So we should all agree, both sides of the aisle, that we want to increase revenue to tackle our budget deficits and ask those who can afford it--the wealthier individuals and profitable corporations--to pay their fair share so that we don't ask children and families, like Elodie's family, to bear the burden.

Elodie certainly had nothing to do with creating the deficit, and many families that the Elodies of the world live in had nothing do with creating the deficit. Asking them to pay more doesn't make any sense. We need to find more savings in the bloated defense budget and waste, fraud, and abuse throughout many different systems. Obviously, we want to get rid of unnecessary and duplicative programs that we don't need, and we should go very carefully through our budget. We don't want to do it at the expense of children.

When we talk about sequestration, these are automatic budget cuts that will go through if we don't resolve the fiscal problems that we have right now. These are, I would argue, inefficient, across-the-board cuts that will be made. And even though some programs for vulnerable Americans are protected, others would be severely cut. We should not allow this.

American families shouldn't be paying for a budget deficit largely caused by things like two unpaid-for wars and two unpaid-for tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the wealthy and Wall Street gone wild, which led to the worst recession since the Great Depression. Our budget should not be balanced on the backs of vulnerable Americans, including women and children. Funding programs that assist vulnerable women and children have already experienced serious cuts in recent years, and we shouldn't be asking more from these safety net programs.

We also want to ensure that we don't replace sequestration, these automatic cuts that will go into place, with something even worse. Some alternatives

are being considered that would actually do even more harm than sequestration to women and children. Although Medicare beneficiaries are protected under sequestration, some proposals would make cuts and/ or change Medicaid into a block grant. That means giving just a sum of money to the States pretty much to do what they want with and not necessarily covering the children and poor people, poor families that need Medicaid support.

In the United States of America, Medicaid covers more than 40 percent of all births and covers one in three children. Think about that. Forty percent of all births and one in three children are in families that qualify for Medicaid support. That means that they're low income enough to be able to qualify for Medicaid, and we certainly don't want to do something that would make that unavailable and so we can continue to have the birth of healthy children.

Sequestration would devastate our public health system, impeding our ability to bend the health care cost curve, to prevent illness, to cure diseases, to ensure access to quality health services, and to ensure the healthy development of our children.

Sequestration will eliminate nearly $1 billion in Federal funding for programs and research designed to promote and protect the health of women and children. These cuts will hinder our ability to extend quality health care services to women and to families.

I want to talk about a very important and often under attack program that we call title X, and that is family planning services, family planning clinics. I also want to talk about the title V maternal and child health services block grants, two programs that reduce barriers for low-income women and children to access critical health care services and support. If we go to these automatic cuts, again called sequestration, we will be cutting $24 million in funding to title X clinics, decreasing Federal funding for the only dedicated family planning program to its lowest point in a decade. Title X clinics are critical and vital components of our health care safety net, providing critical access to breast and cervical cancer screening programs, prevention and treatment services for sexually transmitted diseases, and reducing the rate of unintended pregnancies, and reducing the rate of abortions. Access to family planning means that there will be less abortions in the United States.

For many women, title X clinics provide the only health care services that they ever receive in their lives. Without access, some women will have a harder time obtaining preventive care and treatment services. I'm talking about clinics that provide for up to 5 million women across the country. People like to think about Planned Parenthood as being the place where women can get abortions. That's a tiny part of their services, about 3 percent. Mostly they provide primary health care, including access to contraception. That's a very important service that we want to make sure that we don't cut.

The breast and cervical cancer screening program has been particularly important to providing access for women to early detection and screening services. In my State of Illinois--I'm from the Chicago area--title X clinics have caught 1,400 cases of cervical cancer and 713 cases of breast cancer over a 5-year period through the program. Sequestration cuts mean that 550 fewer Illinois women will be screened for cancer through this program, potentially costing women's lives because their cancer will be found too late without access to these lifesaving services.

I have been joined by one of the chief advocates for women in the United States of America who has been such an incredible and consistent advocate. I am so proud and grateful that Carolyn Maloney from New York has joined us. I would like to yield to the gentlewoman.

I want to underscore a pretty shocking statistic. You mentioned that the United States of America is 50th in infant mortality. Was that the statistic?

One being the best of course.

And you mentioned countries that we wouldn't necessarily expect would be better than the United States--Morocco, for example--and I'm sure there are a bunch of others. Yet the United States of America is 50th. Now, many people don't live in communities in which they see that, but that means that there have to be neighborhoods and communities in our country in which the infant mortality rate is probably very much like those in underdeveloped countries, where they rely on programs like the Women, Infants, and Children program which make sure that women don't have underweight births, children born of low weight.

The other thing you were talking about was the WIC program. It sounds like what you're saying is that we would actually be taking food out of the mouths of little children.

That's why, because we all get into the numbers game, we talk about a billion here and a billion there, et cetera, and that's why I wanted to put up a picture of the beautiful Elodie Michaud, who happens to actually be the daughter of Megan Michaud, who is my legislative director, so people can look at a face. This is the kind of face, if not Elodie's face, that we are talking about. Here's a mom and a baby, too. These are the kinds of faces that we want people to keep in their mind because there are real people behind these numbers. It's easy to say we are going to cut money from the WIC program, Women, Infants, and Children program, and then you realize what that would mean to perhaps this mother and this baby and so many across the country.

I thank you so much for your contributions-- continuing contributions--to the well-being of women and children.

Yes, it's true that title V Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant also does things like combat preterm birth, teen pregnancies, preventing chronic conditions, reducing disparities that are often present in our society. Let's be clear, not everybody has access to quality, affordable health services; and we want to improve that for more than 40 million women, infants, and children with special health care needs.

My State uses title V funding to reduce infant mortality, prevent teen pregnancies, and to ensure newborn screenings, to test children early on for things that can become chronic conditions and make sure that we take care of them early, and to coordinate care for children with physical disabilities. And the sequestration cuts will reduce critical funding to these efforts by over $1.65 million in Illinois alone. And with those cuts, 306,000 fewer Illinois women, infants, and children can be served.

Another really important area that I think a lot of people don't focus on is training of doctors. One of the things that sequestration, these automatic budget cuts, will do is reduce our ability to train pediatric physicians needed to ensure access to quality health care services to children and adolescents.

The Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education program trains more than 40 percent of general pediatricians and 43 percent of all pediatric subspecialists. Sequestration, automatic cuts, would take $21 million from this program forcing the reduction of residency slots, training of doctors, at Children's Hospitals across the country. We want to have these quality doctors that are able to make sure that they can care for our children.

I want to go back to something that Representative Maloney raised, and that's the WIC program--Women, Infants and Children--and immunizations. Experts agree that we must combat our deficit by bringing down the total cost of health care. That's true, but sequestration could result in just the opposite. The sequestration cuts to programs such as what we call the food stamp program, the SNAP program, or the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children and the 317 Immunization Program that will have their funding cut, if we are to reduce our national health care expenditures, we have to make sure that we fund those programs, those special nutrition programs and the immunization programs. They have a track record of saving money on future medical expenses.

Imagine, you're sending your children to school and they're sitting next to a child who simply cannot afford to get the kind of immunizations they need because those funds have been cut. None of us want that. I certainly don't want that for my grandchildren.

The Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, the WIC program, improves health outcomes by providing nutritious food and nutrition and breast feeding education to women and young children. The WIC program has resulted in healthier pregnancies, healthier birth outcomes, and better growth and development of young children.

For every dollar we spend on a pregnant woman in the WIC program, as much as $4.21 is saved in Medicaid expenditures because WIC reduces the risk for preterm birth by 25 percent and low birth weight babies by 44 percent. These are successful programs.

In spite of the proven success and cost savings from the WIC program, sequestration would cut $529 million from the WIC program, which would allow the WIC program to serve approximately 735,000 fewer women and young children who are at nutrition risk, including 24,200 from my home State.

I see that I have been joined by a fearless and tireless advocate for women and children, particularly low-income women and children. This is my next-door neighbor and great friend and great Congresswoman from the great State of Wisconsin, Gwen Moore.

Thank you so much, not only for your words today, but for all your work that you do on behalf of women and children every day.

I want to call now on one of the incredible advocates and leaders when it comes to making sure that our children, in particular, and low- income people have adequate nutrition in a country that is the richest in the world, an advocate for women and children from the State of Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro.

Thank you for your passion, which is obvious every day, for making sure that we make the smart investments in our children and in women and in health care in this country. Thank you, Rosa DeLauro.

And now it is my pleasure to bring up one of the handful of trained nurses that are in this House of Representatives. Lois Capps from California has been a leader on health care and all those programs that are really going to help our families to live the kinds of lives that all of us want to live in the United States. So thank you for joining us, Lois Capps of California.

Let me also just underscore the point you made about training pediatricians and pediatric specialists. That would affect, across the board, everyone who seeks--this is not just for vulnerable communities or individuals, but all of us with small children want to make sure that the doctors are there when our kids may need them. So this is very important. I'm glad you brought them up. Thank you.

I want to just mention another cost-effective reason that we should avoid cuts. For example, we have immunization programs that decrease our future health care costs, and let me just give you the actual dollar numbers.

Every dollar we spend on the childhood vaccine series through this program saves our health care system $16.50 in future medical costs. By anybody's estimation, that's a really good return on investment, $16.50 back for every dollar that we spend on childhood vaccines.

Another aspect of sequestration cuts that would really hurt everyone are the cuts for research into the health challenges facing our country. The proposed cuts to the National Institutes of Health of almost $2.5 billion will cause irreparable harm to our research infrastructure and our ability to treat and cure diseases. Eliminating funding for almost 2,400 research projects will decrease our ability to identify new methods to prevent and combat health challenges such as cancer and diabetes, impede our ability to remain the world leader in biomedical research, eliminate jobs in local communities throughout this country, and hinder our ability to train and develop the future leaders of our biomedical sciences workforce. Research into costly diseases affecting mothers and babies will be especially harmed by these cuts.

The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, which is responsible for conducting and funding research into these diseases, has the lowest percentage of grant applications funded of all the NIH institutes. The $106 million cut to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development will likely worsen this trend and dampen our hopes of finding innovative treatments and cures for conditions that are affecting mothers and babies. These are just some of the examples of the devastating effect of sequestration cuts to maternal and child health programs and research. We can't afford these cuts.

So I just want to end this hour by saying that all of us want to make sure that we do put our fiscal house in order. But the real question is, at what cost are we going to do it to certain people? Who is actually going to pay? I think we all have an interest in making sure that we keep our children, our mothers, and our families healthy, well fed, and make sure that we raise productive children in this country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Jane Ramsey on her retirement as President of the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, JCUA, and to celebrate her thirty years of service with the organization.

Under Jane's leadership, JCUA has pursued its mission of combating poverty, racism, and anti-Semitism in our communities. Guided by the Jewish principles of ``Tzedek'', justice, and ``Tikkun Olam'', repairing the world, JCUA fights for social and economic justice and empowers communities in many of Chicago's most vulnerable neighborhoods.

JCUA is an active and leading voice in Chicago, fighting for human rights and civil rights. From comprehensive immigration reform to racism and bigotry, homelessness to government accountability, Jane and JCUA have empowered countless impoverished, oppressed, or otherwise marginalized communities.

Jane first came to JCUA in 1979 and, throughout her tenure, has fought poverty and hate wherever they occur. From efforts to combat the racism targeting mayoral candidate Harold Washington to organizing efforts to fight for the rights of Chicago Housing Authority residents when high-rise public housing buildings were destroyed, JCUA has been a leading voice demanding social and economic justice.

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, when Chicago's vibrant Muslim community faced a wave of hate crime attacks, JCUA launched its Jewish-Muslim Community Building Initiative. The program has built a long-term relationship between Jewish and Muslim communities, fighting harriers of ignorance and hate and building mutual understanding and respect.

JCUA operates on the principle that affordable housing is a human right, working to create viable housing options and community development projects in Chicago's low-income communities. The organization provides zero-interest seed-funding for affordable housing development and preservation projects, capacity-building assistance to community groups engaging in economic development projects, and advocacy on behalf of affordable housing initiatives.

In recent years, JCUA has fought for immigration reform. Building on Jewish law and experience, JCUA fights the expansion of federal immigration detention centers, supports passage of the DREAM Act, and advocates for

fair and just immigration reform to keep families together and create pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrations.

Throughout her distinguished career, Jane has been recognized both locally and nationally. In 2009 she was named to the ``Forward 50'' list of those ``leading the American Jewish community into the 21st century''. She is a current board member of CAN-TV, Leadership Greater Chicago Fellows Association, Illinois Coalition for Immigrants and Refugee Rights, and the Shalom Center. In the past, she has also served her community by working with the Justice Coalition of Greater Chicago, Chicago Coalition to Protect Public Housing, Ethics Coalition, KAM Isaiah Israel Congregation, Women in Charge; and as a commissioner for Private Industry Council, PIC, the Women's Commission of the City of Chicago, and the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism.

For thirty years, Jane's work has changed the lives of countless individuals, families, and communities throughout Chicago. Her work has empowered Jews of all ages, brought together individuals of different faiths, and given a voice to those who would otherwise have gone unheard. I have been privileged to work with Jane over the years on several issues and projects and feel fortunate to call her a treasured friend. I join others in the Chicago area in offering my deep gratitude for her decades of work and lifelong commitment to social justice, empowerment, and human rights and in wishing her well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Solomon Schechter Day School of Metropolitan Chicago, on the occasion of the school's 50th anniversary.

For five decades, Solomon Schechter Day School has served Jewish children and families in the Chicago area, integrating Judaic studies with general education. Founded in 1962, the school was founded with the vision of helping students understand their Jewish and American lives as an integrated whole. Solomon Schechter Day School continues to provide an extended community where students and families are encouraged to explore their Jewish identity in a positive environment.

From the first 27 students who enrolled in 1962, more than 2,500 graduates of Solomon Schechter have gone on to play leading roles throughout the Chicago area and across the world. The school currently serves 550 children from 30 communities in the Chicago area. Today, Solomon Schechter Day School of Metropolitan Chicago is a pre- kindergarten through eighth grade Jewish day school, with an Early Childhood Center located in Skokie, and a K-8 school in Northbrook. Students at Solomon Schechter Day School attend over 40 synagogues, and come from families with roots in the United States, Israel, Chile, Argentina, Russia, Ethiopia, and more.

As a member of Congress, it has been my privilege to welcome Solomon Schechter students to Washington for many years. I have been consistently impressed by the maturity, knowledge, and inquisitive spirit of the students I have met. They are students who want to make a difference in their community, their country and the world. Solomon Schechter Day School gives them the education, support, and resources to do so.

For fifty years, Solomon Schechter Day School has empowered students to think critically, while also teaching them to live Jewish values and honor timeless traditions. It is my great privilege to join the Solomon Schechter Day School community in celebrating the fifty years of serving Jewish students and families in the Chicago area, and I look forward to many exciting years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of victims of domestic violence and in recognition of October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. For far too long, domestic violence victims have been ignored, afraid to speak up, and scared of being stigmatized. Battered immigrant women have been particularly vulnerable to domestic violence due to their temporary immigration status or lack of status. These women often suffer in silence because they fear threats of deportation, fear being separated from their children, and are afraid to come out of the shadows.

We have made significant progress in both reducing incidents of domestic violence and in offering support to victims. Eighteen years ago, Vice President Biden led the bipartisan effort to enact the Violence Against Women Act. As we all know, VAWA has strengthened communities and provided critical, life-saving support to victims of domestic violence, including battered immigrant women.

Obamacare expands access to critical domestic violence services. Under Obamacare, health insurers must provide women with access to domestic violence screening and counseling services without any cost- sharing and they cannot charge higher premiums to victims of domestic violence. This eliminates cost as a barrier to accessing these important services.

Nonprofit organizations are also doing inspiring work to aid victims of domestic violence. One such organization is Second Chance Employment Services. I want to recognize the extraordinary work done by this organization, and its founder Dr. Ludy Green. SCES offers survivors of domestic violence counseling and individualized job training services. SCES provides these women with both emotional support and the resources needed for financial security.

Despite all of these efforts, we still have a long way to go. Every day, three women in the United States die as a result of domestic violence. We must do everything we can to combat these unconscionable acts and support victims of this horrible crime. As the President noted in his Proclamation in honor of National Domestic Violence Awareness Month of 2012, ``Let us renew our efforts to support victims of domestic violence in their time of greatest need, and to realize an America where no one lives in fear because they feel unsafe in their own home.''

In recognition of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, we all must recommit to continuing to fight for all survivors of domestic violence. We must all work together to reauthorize VAWA before the end of this Congress and ensure that we expand rather than erode protections for all victims of domestic violence. I urge my Republican colleagues to pass the bipartisan Senate bill, which passed the Senate on April 26 by a more than 2-1 vote, so that we can expand rather than roll back protections for victims of domestic violence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my thanks and support for recent actions by Northwestern University to help students register to vote and navigate increasingly complex and strict voter registration procedures nationwide. Their efforts were chronicled in an article by the New York Times this past Sunday, and I hope that my colleagues will pay attention to the story and its lessons.

Today, roughly 11 million college students are eligible to vote. Unfortunately, states across the country have considered or passed legislative initiatives that erect barriers to student voting. Northwestern University, which I am proud to represent, rose to the challenge and adopted a series of policies to ensure that its student body could go to the polls. When incoming freshman picked up their student IDs, they were given the opportunity to register to vote. Volunteers took time out of their day to make sure that out-of-state students were given absentee request forms, and any assistance they required so that their vote would count when they engaged in their civic duty.

As last weekend's article noted, Northwestern University's initiatives were wildly successful. Last year, 89% of incoming Northwestern freshmen were registered to vote in 37 states by the first day of class. This year, the university again saw dramatic success-- almost 95% of their eligible freshman were registered as of the first day of classes, and out-of-state students had the tools to make sure their vote was not denied due to new state regulations.

After the enormous success seen on its campus, Northwestern University expanded its project and created the UVote Project. The UVote Project shares these proven registration techniques to campuses across the nation--providing consistent and streamlined registration efforts so that students get the support they need to participate in the democratic process. According to the project's web page, schools who adopt these methods typically see their student voter registration rates double or triple.

These recent efforts by Northwestern University and their UVote Project are the type of collaboration between students and institutions of higher learning that I envisioned when I introduced the Student VOTER Act, a bill that would make institutions of higher learning play a key role in voter registration efforts. The contents of this bill have been incorporated into H.R. 5799, the Voter Empowerment Act of 2012. The Voter Empowerment Act modernizes and overhauls our voter registration system to assure that as many people are involved in our democratic process as possible, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I congratulate Northwestern President Morty Shapiro and hope other universities will follow his lead. Together, through policies like those created by Northwestern University and through legislation such as the Voter Empowerment Act of 2012, we can encourage increased engagement and participation, including among student voters.

[From the New York Times, Oct. 13, 2012]

Colleges Take a Leap Into Voter Registration

(By Steven Yaccino)

Evanston, IL.--Every four years, volunteers swarm

university campuses, clipboards in hand, to register newly

eligible voters for what is generally the only presidential

election of their undergraduate careers. This year they found

large numbers were already registered.

Dozens of colleges have begun their own voting registration

drives in orientation programs, class registration, intranet

Web sites and other interactions crucial to campus life,

institutionalizing services that had often been left to

outside efforts. As a result, thousands of students

registered to vote, updated their addresses or requested

absentee ballots from their home states within days of

arriving to campus this fall, officials at several

universities said.

University-sponsored attempts to make voting easier for

students are being tested in at least 60 colleges across the

country amid the outbreak of battles over new voting laws.

``The voter registration process has become more cumbersome

and difficult as there's been a competition to define who is

eligible to vote,'' said Dan A. Lewis, director of

Northwestern University's Center for Civic Engagement, which

started incorporating voter registration into its freshman

orientation last year. ``You almost have to have a Ph.D. now

to figure out how to do it if you're not sitting in the same

house for the past 20 years.''

Northwestern officials who developed the new program, UVote

Project, said their intent was not to critique voting rules

across the country, but to help students navigate them more

easily.

``We're not always going to have the incredible excitement

among 18- to 22-year-olds that you did in 2008, so I think

it's an obligation,'' said Morton Schapiro, the president of

Northwestern. ``We're supposed to teach citizenship.''

Northwestern, just north of Chicago, began a drive to

register voters last year, with incoming students signing up

when they picked up their campus IDs. University-trained

staff and volunteers provided absentee ballot request forms

from all 50 states, scanned students' driver's licenses or

other identification, and offered to mail in the paperwork.

By the first day of class, 89 percent of the university's

freshmen had been registered to vote, in 37 states.

Northwestern repeated the effort this year, registering

almost 95 percent of eligible freshmen, and expanded the

model to eight other colleges. Stanford University used the

method around campus, including on its bicycle registration

line, netting more than 700 new voters in two weeks.

Roughly 11 million eligible voters ages 18 to 24 are in

college, about a quarter of all eligible young voters,

according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic

Learning and Engagement at Tufts University.

The federal Higher Education Amendments of 1998 require

colleges to make a ``good faith effort'' to distribute

registration materials to transient students, who have the

option to establish residency in their home community or

where they go to school.

Students who prefer to vote absentee must first traverse an

array of varied rules. Some states, like Michigan and

Tennessee, make voters who register by mail cast a ballot in

person for their first election. North Carolina requires that

ballot requests be handwritten. Other states, like Delaware

and Wyoming, require a notary.

Complicating matters more this election have been partisan

fights over restrictions on registration drives and new laws

requiring state-issued IDs for voting, though many have been

overturned or blocked this year.

Harvard University, which holds a competition among

dormitories to register the most voters, is one of a growing

number of schools expanding efforts by purchasing access to

the Web site of TurboVote, a nonprofit effort that provides

complete online registration and automated vote-bymail

services.

Founded in 2010, TurboVote is working with 58 colleges this

year. It now helps more than 100,000 individuals get absentee

ballots, find voting locations and track coming elections,

sending out text reminders for important deadlines.

``We single-handedly registered more people in a couple of

hours than several organizations that have been doing this

for months,'' said Shelby Taylor, a spokeswoman for the

University of Florida, which promoted TurboVote on the

college's intranet home page and in an e-mail from the

university's president. The school, which registered more

than 3,000 students this year, also flashed ads for TurboVote

on the football stadium's GatorVision screen during the

opening home game last month.

``We alone cannot do this,'' said Heather Smith, president

of Rock the Vote, which has been registering voters on

campuses for two decades. ``If we could get every university

engaged and invested in the work of asking every one of their

students to register to vote, we'd have a very different

democracy.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the contributions of a true American patriot, Mr. John Ronald ``Jack'' Schufreider, who is in Washington this week with other World War II veterans. Mr. Schufreider has already lived a full life: he is a husband, a father, a World War II veteran, and so much more. He is the epitome of the ``greatest generation.''

Born in Chicago and raised in Oak Park, Illinois, Jack Schufreider left home to serve his country shortly after turning eighteen years of age in 1944. He was sent to the Pacific theater, where he served in the Field Artillery as a radio operator. After spending time in the Philippines, Jack was assigned to a unit and spent time interviewing soldiers who had been interred as prisoners of war under the Japanese.

When Jack Schufreider returned home after the war, he resolved to live a good life. With the help of the G.I. Bill he enrolled at Northwestern University, earning a degree in Business Administration. After graduation, he spent time as a salesman before he contributed almost thirty years of his life to the Channer Corporation--rising up to an executive position before retiring.

Jack saw remarkable success in the business world, and has seen similar success in his private life. He married his wife, Marjorie, and they have been together for over fifty five years. Over the course of those decades, they raised seven children, and I know they are quite proud of their twenty four grandchildren, and first great grandchild.

Today, Jack and his wife remain active members of the community. They are parishioners at St. Joan of Arc Church, and Jack continues to sing in the church choir. They regularly travel abroad and are very involved in community activities.

On behalf of myself and a grateful nation, I want to thank Jack Schufreider for all that he has done for our nation: for his service, his sacrifices, and the fruits of many decades of hard work. I want to welcome him and all the other veterans participating in the ``Honor Flights'' to Washington D.C. to visit the World War II Memorial.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of women's health and in recognition of September as National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. This year, it is estimated that 22,280 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer and that 15,500 women, including 620 from Illinois, will die from it. If ovarian cancer is diagnosed and treated before the cancer spreads outside of the ovary, the five-year survival rate is 93 percent. Unfortunately, only 15 percent of ovarian cancers are found at that stage.

Too many women are losing their lives to ovarian cancer, the deadliest of the gynecologic cancers. Because no screening or early detection tests exist today, many women are unaware that they are living with this disease until it is too late. We need to increase public education about the early warning signs because, as organizations such as the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance stress, ``until there's a test, awareness is best.'' Treating this disease before it has spread beyond the ovary significantly increases the survival rate. At the same time, we need more than awareness--we need to continue the medical research required to develop the screening tests that will save women's lives.

Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month helps increase awareness of ovarian cancer and focus attention on the continued need for innovative research efforts to identify screening and early detection tests for ovarian cancer.

I commend the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, including their Partner Member groups CCare Lynch Syndrome, Bright Pink, and FORCE of Chicago, for their steadfast commitment to making women aware of the risk factors, signs, and symptoms of ovarian cancer and for their advocacy on behalf of women and families touched by this devastating disease. I urge my colleagues to help make women aware of the potential warning signs of this disease and to continue to support ovarian cancer research efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the need for strategies to maintain and improve access to home-based medical and long-term care services.

As the Co-Chair of the Seniors Task Force, I am committed to ensuring seniors get the care that need in the setting that they prefer. Today, three and a half million Medicare beneficiaries get home health services, allowing them to live independently in their own homes while getting the medical care they need. Home healthcare provides skilled, safe and effective medical treatments that once were available only a hospital or doctor's office, allowing seniors and people with disabilities to receive necessary medical care without needing transportation to a doctor's office or admission to a hospital. Home health care is good for individuals and their families, and it also is good for taxpayers. Home healthcare services saved Medicare $2.81 billion dollars between 2006 and 2009.

As we head into this fall's debate on sequestration and alternative budget proposals, I urge my colleagues to remember the importance of home health care to seniors and people with disabilities on Medicare and to avoid cuts that will threaten the services upon which they rely.

Twelve million adults--seniors and adults with disabilities--need long-term care services but Medicaid is currently unable to meet all their needs. The problem will become even more serious in the future, since it is estimated that 27 million Americans will need long-term services by 2050. Yet, our nation still lacks a comprehensive approach to meet current and future long-term care needs.

I have introduced H. Res. 759 to express support for a comprehensive approach to provide the home care workforce and long-term care services we need in order to ensure that seniors and people with disabilities are able to live at home and enjoy a dignified quality of life. It is time not just for a national discussion, but for national solutions.

We know that we have to address the cost of health and long-term care, but there is a right way to deal with those costs and a wrong way. The wrong answer would be to target vulnerable seniors and people with disabilities--denying them home healthcare and long-term care options or shifting the financial burdens to family caregivers. Large Medicare and Medicaid cuts, vouchers and block grants would do real harm to real people. Higher cost-sharing requirements will price essential services out of reach.

Instead, we need to look for ways to lower health care costs across- the-board by eliminating fraud and abuse, giving Medicare authority to use its bargaining power to negotiate for lower drug prices as the VA does, encouraging greater efficiency in the delivery of care, and encouraging the use of cost-effective health care services, including home healthcare services.

As we undertake serious budget discussions this fall, we must carefully consider the real-life impacts of the choices before us. I will be working to make sure that we protect and improve our ability to meet the home healthcare and long-term care needs of seniors and people with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for individuals and families affected by Alzheimer's Disease.

As we recognize September as World Alzheimer's Month, I want to thank the many advocates, caregivers, and health professionals who provide support for those who suffer from Alzheimer's Disease, and the medical researchers who are working so hard to discover better treatments and cures. I especially want to recognize the work of the Alzheimer's Association, including the Greater Illinois Chapter, that is working to reduce stigma and eliminate Alzheimer's Disease.

Alzheimer's Disease is the sixth-leading cause of death in the United States, and it is the only cause of death among the top 10 that today cannot be prevented, cured, or even slowed. Every 68 seconds, an American develops Alzheimer's Disease. It is estimated that this year, 5.4 million Americans are living with Alzheimer's Disease, including 210,000 people aged 65 or older in Illinois. In addition to the physical and emotional toll of those afflicted with Alzheimer's and their families, there are immense costs associated with caring for those with Alzheimer's.

The Alzheimer's Association not only makes critical investments into Alzheimer's research but also provides support groups, education programs, and other resources to patients, caregivers, and families. More than 15 million Americans will provide unpaid care valued at $210 billion to individuals who suffer from Alzheimer's and other dementias. As the co-chair of the House Democratic Caucus Seniors Task Force, I am committed to accelerating our efforts to help patients and caregivers.

Today, September 21, is ``Go Purple'' day to highlight the need to end Alzheimer's. I hope that we also remember today that Congress needs to act to help meet that goal, while also making sure that individuals living with Alzheimer's and those who care for them receive the assistance they need and deserve. Last May, the first ever National Alzheimer's Plan was released, laying out the needs and the opportunities before us--in public education, treatment, support services, and research. We need to adopt their positive recommendations, but we also need to make sure that we move forward, not backwards.

We cannot make short-sighted cuts to medical research, including the National Institutes of Health, that will delay the discovery of new treatments and cures. This year, it will cost $200 billion, including $140 billion from Medicare and Medicaid, to provide care for those living with Alzheimer's and other dementias. This cost is estimated to soar to $1.1 trillion by 2050. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid would be devastating to Alzheimer's patients and caregivers, and arbitrary cuts to Older Americans Act programs will leave individuals and caregivers without the supports they need.

I urge my colleagues and their staff to join me to recognize September as World Alzheimer's Month and commit to developing and implementing strategies to address Alzheimer's disease.

Mr. Speaker, this is Constitution Week, when we celebrate our fundamental rights as Americans. Today, one of the most cherished rights, the right to vote, is under serious attack.

Recent efforts to suppress voter participation are designed to silence the voice of American voters, especially seniors, people of color, the poor, and young adults.

In Florida, new restrictions on voter registration led the League of Women Voters to suspend their efforts until the law was halted by the court. Republican legislatures have passed strict voting requirements, although Pennsylvania could not provide even one example of voter fraud. Even elderly veterans, who risked their lives for our country, may be turned away from the polls because they lack the proper IDs. Five million Americans could be disenfranchised.

Anyone who values our Constitution should encourage voting, not erect barriers based on false claims of voter fraud.