Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, understand this: the Republicans planned to exempt Members of Congress from the provisions of TrumpCare until they got caught. So here are five numbers that show just how deadly and dangerous the Republican bill is: Twenty-four million is the number of children, adults, and veterans whose health insurance will be ripped away. $880 billion is the size of the cut to Medicaid, threatening health care and long-term care for 74 million people: children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the disabled. $600 billion is the tax cut that goes to millionaires and billionaires and corporations. 758 percent is the premium increase a 64-year-old making $26,000 a year will pay because of the Republican age tax. Seventeen percent is the percent of Americans who supported TrumpCare before they made it worse. The Republicans' attempt to improve TrumpCare is like trying to douse a dumpster fire with gasoline. This bill is a disaster, and anyone who votes for it does so at their extreme peril. The American people are watching, and they will not forget.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Actually, the idea of the 40-hour day began over--yesterday makes 130 years at Haymarket Square in the city of Chicago, my hometown. And the idea is very simple: that after 40 hours of work, which is a reasonable time in most industrialized countries in the world, that people then get overtime pay. It is something that helps strengthen families and is good for workers to have money in their pockets. But the idea here, under the guise of flexibility--which is a really nice word--is it allows employers to deny extra hours to workers who want overtime. Instead, they can pick those who are willing to work long hours without pay for promises in the future that they would be able to have comp time, that they would be able to make it up at a time of their boss' choosing. Oh, they say over a negotiation, but go ahead and try and negotiate with your employer about that. While the majority argues that providing comp time to private sector workers creates parity between the public and private sector, workers in the public sector have many more protections than workers in the private sector right now. Union density in the public sector is five to six times the union density of the private sector. Workers represented by unions have far more bargaining power than unrepresented workers, greatly increasing the potential for employer abuse of comp time and decreasing the employees' ability to defend themselves from such abuses. Workers in the public sector have more job security, higher wages than their private sector counterparts. This means public sector workers are less likely to be putting their jobs at risk. So this is just a bad idea, hurts workers, hurts families, hurts the longstanding idea of the 40-hour workweek.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the students and teachers from Maine South High School in Park Ridge, Illinois who recently participated in the 30th Annual We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution national academic competition and placed tenth in the nation. The We the People program is sponsored by the Center for Civic Education and is the most extensive program in the nation educating students about the history and principles of U.S. constitutional democracy. The national competition takes the form of a simulated congressional hearing during which students demonstrate their knowledge and skills as they evaluate, take, and defend positions on historical and contemporary constitutional issues. Independent studies show that We the People students benefit greatly from this experience. I would like to commend the teachers, Andrew Trenkle and Kevin Hansen, for their dedication and expertise in the classroom. The following are the names of the students from their constitution team: Cardella Alison, Margaret Bono, Kathryn Boyce, Gracie DeRosa, Lily Dysart, Anna Ebacher, Maria Francque, Katherine Heyde, Maria Iatrides, Grace Janes, Ann Kapustiak, Julia Klages, Dominika Kolendo, Garrett Kreger, Alexander Krysl, Maura Lally, Catherine Martin, Sydney Mathias, Thomas Ng, William Olafsson, Marc Piarowski, Mary Pat Roche, Shannon Ryan, Jill Steffen, Daniel Touhy, Peyton Turner, Emerson Uhlig, Elaina Wilkens, Kristin Woo, Isis Zaki. Mr. Speaker, with many reports and studies documenting a lack of education among the public of some of our most basic constitutional principles and institutions, the need for effective civic education programs in the schools is quite evident. The We the People program is an important part of the solution to this problem. I salute these young constitutional experts on their performance and wish them success in the years ahead.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office watching this debate, and I really appreciate the opportunity to come down. I ran down the stairs because I wanted to speak to this issue. Now, it really doesn't matter what anybody in here thinks about what I think is a pretty amazing piece of art. Under the banner of artistic discovery--that is the competition that we have, artistic discovery--we are inviting young people, high school students, to express themselves, sometimes to find themselves in the artwork that they do, to clarify ideals for themselves and to challenge people. What is art about, if not that? So, in my office right now, we are putting together the artwork that has been submitted from the high schools in our district. We take very great pride in our artistic discovery contests, and so we are collecting that artwork. But as we looked at the instructions before we did it, we saw this new addition that just came up, first time. How long is this? Thirty- two years we have been doing this? This is the first year that it includes suitability guidelines, and it makes very clear that subjects of contemporary political controversy are not allowed. Then we have to sign, each Member of Congress will be required to submit a letter of support for their work of art. This letter is to ensure that the Member has seen the artwork before it is submitted, has taken responsibility for the content, and has certified that the artwork, in the Member's opinion, adheres to the suitability guidelines. Now, of course it says: ``While it is not the intent to censor any artwork, we do wish to avoid artwork that is potentially inappropriate for display in this highly traveled area leading to the Capitol.'' What the heck does that really mean? Does that mean that people are not--you know, we have to worry about is somebody going to take offense at something or say, ``Ooh, I don't like that picture''? They are entitled to do it, and the artist is entitled to put it out here. Now, it so happens that none of the pieces that were submitted, I think, were unsuitable, but who the heck knows anymore? Who makes the decision about what is unsuitable? I don't know. Some of the--if you look down the hall and look at some of them, some of those self-portraits, I don't know, these kids look troubled to me. Is that something that ought to be taken down? No. Absolutely no. This young person lived through a traumatic incident in his community and I think, quite artistically, decided to express his feelings about it. I think it is absolutely an outrage. We already heard about the violation of the Constitution, but each and every American should be offended by that and about these suitable guidelines. I am sorry. I object. I hope you do too.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the wartime service of Major Jack Bornhoeft, a longtime resident of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois. On April 3, the Consul General of France in Chicago, Vincent Floreani, recognized Jack Bornhoeft as a French Knight of the Legion of Honor. The award is an important recognition of Major Bornhoeft's contribution to efforts to liberate France from German occupation. In 1942, Jack Bornhoeft, then only 19 years of age, volunteered for service in the Army Air Corps. He would eventually pilot a B-26 Marauder on 45 missions--participating in three major campaigns from September 1944 through June 1945. Jack Bornhoeft risked his life time and time again--participating in operations across France and Germany as United States and Allied forces fought against the Nazi regime. He and his crew regularly braved enemy fire, and their B-26 survived numerous hits. I am forever grateful for the service of Major Bornhoeft and his crew, and I believe that we must never forget what they and other service members went through as they risked--and in many cases sacrificed--their lives to defend freedom in World War II. I also want to recognize the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, and the French government for their efforts to recognize veterans like Major Bornhoeft who have done their duty and deserve recognition. I Thank Major Bornhoeft, for all that he has done for our country.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am really grateful to the gentleman for yielding but also for organizing this Special Order on something that really is special: Who is going to sit on the Supreme Court, and how do we deal with Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination? Of course, we in the House don't have a vote, but we certainly do have the privilege to be able to weigh in on something as important as this in this manner. So I do appreciate the opportunity. Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court is the latest battle in the Republicans' war on women and workers. I will find myself agreeing and probably repeating some of what Congresswoman Jayapal has said, but I think it bears repeating. First of all, let me say we should make no mistake: this is a stolen Supreme Court seat. Senate Republicans demonstrated unprecedented-- meaning never before in history--disrespect for the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and our Constitution by denying Judge Merrick Garland a vote or even a hearing when he was put into nomination by President Obama. That has never, ever happened before in our history. Last year, Republicans ignored their constitutional duty by denying Judge Garland a hearing. By the way, he had been approved by the Congress in the past for a seat on the district court, and he had praise on both sides of the aisle. So it wasn't a question of his being qualified or not. It was they did not want the ability of Barack Obama to even nominate someone and have him considered for the Supreme Court. So now they want to break the rules of the Senate to rush their own nominee through. This is a nomination to the United States Supreme Court, the highest body in the land, the highest Court in the land. The decisions the next Justice takes part in will affect Americans for decades, if not centuries, because it could set precedent. Given the importance of this position, Senators have the right to insist on a 60- vote threshold for ending the debate on the nominee, and Senate Democrats should insist on 60 votes because Judge Gorsuch has demonstrated time and time again that he has put the interest of corporations above Americans--I will describe that later--whether it is worker safety or a woman's access even to contraception. I am going to talk for a minute about women. President Trump said he would nominate a judge to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that said, as a matter of privacy, that women could make their own decisions about terminating a pregnancy. Women take that threat very seriously. Judge Gorsuch talked about precedents he likes, like Brown v. Board of Education, integrating the schools. I agree with him on that. But tellingly, when he mentioned the precedents that he reveres, he certainly did not give Roe v. Wade the same status. Judge Gorsuch's judicial record should add to our concern. After the 10th Circuit panel ruled against the State of Utah's attempt to defund Planned Parenthood following the release of deceptively edited videos, Judge Gorsuch called for the full court to hear the case, presumably to overturn the decision. Judge Gorsuch was in the minority in this instance, and his request was dismissed. In the Hobby Lobby case, Judge Gorsuch sided against women, allowing bosses to deny their women employees contraception as part of health coverage. Now I want to talk a little bit about workers. In many other cases, Judge Gorsuch has prioritized the interest of employers over the rights of workers. He blocked a woman in Colorado from going to trial on sexual harassment claims because she didn't report the harassment quickly enough. Judge Gorsuch denied a professor with leukemia at Kansas State University protection under the Rehabilitation Act. He sided with a mining company after a worker was electrocuted due to inadequate safety training. He sided with a trucking company that fired a trucker driving through Illinois--that is my State--who decided to leave his broken trailer instead of freezing to death, literally. The truck was down, couldn't get started, and his choice was to sit there with the truck or to be able to go to safety in freezing temperatures. Fortunately for workers, Judge Gorsuch was in the minority in some of those cases, but we can't count on him being in the minority once he is on the Supreme Court. His dangerous antiwoman, antiworker views should not be elevated to our highest court. So I urge my Democratic colleagues in the Senate to stand strong against the Gorsuch nomination. And to Senate Republicans, it was disrespectful to the Constitution to block Judge Garland. I am not even saying necessarily that he would have been approved, but to not even offer him a hearing or a vote was disrespectful to our Constitution, and it is disrespectful to the traditions of the Senate to force Judge Gorsuch through now. We don't want to break the rules to get one nominee through, especially not a nominee who puts critical protections for Americans at risk. Women are watching. Workers are watching. And on Friday, all Americans will know whose side the Senate is on and whose side the Senate Republicans are on. Everyone is paying attention.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, less science, more pollution--that is, unbelievably, the Republican plan. I want to just refer to what my colleague said. This is not long-ball time. This is emergency time where we have to deal with a worldwide environmental crisis, and this bill is just the latest attack on clean air and clean water. And as the threat of climate change becomes increasingly clear, Republicans are trying to reverse the progress that we have made to address this global challenge. President Trump proposed gutting the Environmental Protection Agency, and this week he signed an executive order to ignore the effects of climate change, increase drilling on Federal lands, and undo efforts to promote renewable energy. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have voted to block environmental protections. Republicans are replacing President Obama's Clean Power Plan with, essentially, a dirty power plan that will pollute our air and contaminate our water and put our children and our grandchildren at risk. Those actions further confirm Republicans' place on the wrong side of history. It is time for America to lead, not to ignore reality. We should be investing in clean, job-producing energy. We should be at the forefront of the fight against climate change. My constituents and most Americans expect to drink clean water and breathe fresh air. They want to protect our planet for future generations. Republicans, today, have it backward. We need more science and less pollution. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and resist those attacks on our environment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Last week, Republicans tried to take away your health care; and, today, they are trying to take away your privacy. Republicans have said broadband providers and other internet companies should be under the same privacy rules. But oddly enough, when the committee considered an amendment to give the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, rulemaking authority like the FCC, a change that would allow the agencies to adopt the same privacy protection, every single Republican voted no. In fact, Republicans proposed making it harder for the FTC to pursue privacy and data security cases. The protections that the FCC adopted last year were very simple: consumers should know what data is being collected, opt in to sharing of sensitive data, have their data reasonably protected, and receive notice when their data is compromised. But this dangerous resolution puts America's privacy and data security at risk. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to stand up for consumers and vote ``no.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely ask my Republican colleagues: Did you really come here to take health care away from 24 million people? Over 40,000 people in my district will lose their coverage. Did you come to Congress to make insurance more expensive for my constituent, Mary, who has a preexisting condition and now pays half of what she used to pay for insurance because of the tax credits she got from ObamaCare? Did you come to Congress to impose a crippling age tax on Americans 50 to 60 years old? Your bill would increase their premiums an average of $8,000 a year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, within 10 years, nearly 30 percent of those 50-to 64-year-olds would be without any insurance. Did you really come to Congress to take nursing home and home care away from the elderly and the disabled? Did you get elected in order to take health care from mothers? Your bill would kick them off of Medicaid if they don't find a job 60 days after they give birth. We have heard over and over that patients need choices and should be empowered to choose the care that they want. But, apparently, that doesn't apply to women. The bill would block millions of women from choosing Planned Parenthood, a trusted healthcare provider to 2.5 million patients every year. The American people are not clamoring for you to repeal ObamaCare. Only 17 percent of Americans say that you should vote to repeal ObamaCare. The average American overwhelmingly wants you to vote ``no.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Summit of Hope, an event organized by the Illinois Department of Corrections, the Illinois Department of Public Health, and local organizations throughout Illinois. The Summit of Hope is designed to help former inmates reintegrate into society and succeed as citizens once they've served their time in prison, promoting public safety and reducing recidivism in the process. All too often, former inmates do not have access to the tools they need to succeed in our society. Without access to employment or housing, they in too many cases return to prison. The Summit of Hope is a large community expo designed to provide individuals on parole or probation with access to the tools they need. Services provided at the event range from voter registration, to counseling, to job training, to health screenings and beyond. By providing access to these services, organizers are ensuring that these individuals have every opportunity to succeed and reintegrate in our society. I am grateful for the extraordinary efforts of Mr. Marcus King, Community Outreach Administrator for the Illinois Department of Corrections' Office of Constituent Services. Mr. King is a driving force behind this and other Summit of Hope events around the state of Illinois, and his impact on reducing recidivism cannot be overstated. I also want to note the important efforts of Ms. Brandi Vigil, a full-time faculty member with Loyola University's Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology. Ms. Vigil and Loyola University have helped make the Summit of Hope a reality. I am honored to have a Summit of Hope event take place in the 9th Congressional District of Illinois, and I hope that this and future events help make our communities safer and equip former inmates with the tools they need to succeed.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, it was 7 years ago today that the Affordable Care Act passed and changed the lives of so many millions of Americans who previously couldn't get health care. But I think we knew even at the time that a big bill like this, a transformative piece of legislation like this, over time would require some changes, just as Social Security and Medicare have done. The truth of the matter is, for 7 years, as we heard Republicans complaining about what was happening, we said: Let's sit down together, as Members of Congress, representatives of the people, and fix what we have got and build on the things that have made it possible for all these millions of people to have not only health care, but better health care. Instead, what we heard over and over again is: Repeal ObamaCare; repeal ObamaCare. And I kind of feel like today what we have is, because they said that, then they feel like they have to fulfill a promise. But if you look at what they are offering, it really hurts so many Americans. What I hope the American people will understand is that the so-called repeal-and-replace bill raises the cost of premiums and out-of-pocket costs. People are going to pay more and get less. Twenty-four million people--that is just a start; it ends up being some 50 million people after some years--will lose their coverage altogether. It represents the single largest transfer of wealth to the top richest Americans and corporations. We are talking about $600 billion in tax relief. There is not a lot of talk about that. In many ways, this is a tax cut for the richest being masked as a healthcare bill. Finally, I want to really focus in on what we call the age tax. Well, before I was a senior citizen myself, I have worked with older Americans in the State of Illinois, where I am from, and here in Congress as well. So what is this age tax? This bill says that people who are between the age of 50--not very old--and 64, in other words, pre-Medicare, will be allowed to be charged five times more than young people for their health care. Actually, it allows the States even to go more than five times more for their health care. It will lower the subsidies. As has been said many times, here is just an example. If you are 64 years old with an income of around $26,500--which, by the way, is the median income for people that age, certainly not a wealthy person--you would pay, under this bill, the Republican bill, $14,600 for premiums-- think of that--as compared to $1,700 today, an increase of $12,900. So it is not surprising that the Congressional Budget Office predicts that many of those people will simply have to give up their health care. The reason they want to charge them more is to entice younger people, who will then pay lower premiums, to actually get on the program. We are all for that. We want to make sure that young people get on. But people who are 50 to 64 are very likely, or more likely than young people, to have healthcare issues. It is absolutely no wonder that so many organizations and forces are lining up in the United States to oppose this bill: The American Medical Association, the doctors, and all the different subgroups of doctors, have written letters saying no to this repeal- and-replace. The American Hospital Association, not only urban hospitals and hospitals in medically underserved areas, rural hospitals could go under. The AARP, 35 million members strong, is absolutely dead set--they are running ads; some people may have seen them on television--against this legislation. The American Nurses Association, conservative think tanks are against it, and many Members of Congress are against it--and for good reason. One of our Republican Senators said to House Republicans: Don't walk the plank. I would suggest they take that advice and vote ``no.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and many accomplishments of Philip T. Kalayil, a leader in Chicago and in the Indian-American community. Mr. Kalayil lived a life of purpose, spent enriching the lives of those he met and those he served. We in Chicago are indeed fortunate that he settled here, coming from his state of Kerala in India to pursue his studies at Loyola University and staying to promote diversity, opportunity and understanding. Philip Kalayil was always a scholar, earning a double master's in sociology and industrial relations and receiving the Heart of Asian American Community Award from the Association for Asian American Studies in 2008. His research helped him understand the disparities and discrimination facing members of the Asian American community, and it led him to a lifetime of work to tear down barriers so others could also succeed. He was a scholar with a vision and he put that vision to use to improve our entire community. His career was multifaceted. He was a social worker for Catholic Charities. He served as Assistant Director of Emergency Services at the Department of Human Services. Mr. Kalayil was also an outstanding and passionate advocate. Among the many organizations he helped build and foster are the Indian Catholic Association of America, the Asian Forum, and the Indo-American Democratic Organization (IADO). Each was designed to help members of the Indian-American and the greater Asian-American community not just thrive individually but become active participants in the broader society. Philip Kalayil showed us the importance of working together across racial, ethnic and religious lines. He knew that many things were possible if we learned to work and engage together. He was a teacher, a doer and an inspiration. He was also a devoted family member, and I know that his children-- Tom, Sales and Ann, my dear friend--are mourning his loss. I hope that they will take comfort in knowing how much their father is missed and how many lives he touched throughout his life.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 170.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Last Thursday, I was wandering the Capitol searching for the Republican's secret repeal bill. We went from room to room, and it wasn't there. But now that I have seen it, I understand why they would want to hide it. Even if we can all agree that we need to make health care more affordable and more accessible, this bill is not the solution. In fact, this bill will only make things worse. The Republican repeal bill gives tax breaks to the rich. We are talking about over $600 billion overall, while taking away health coverage from millions of Americans. The Republican repeal bill will drastically increase the cost of health insurance for millions of Americans, with the biggest increase for seniors and for working families. It would radically change the Medicaid program, slashing funding, and covering fewer people. The Republican repeal bill will force Governors and State legislators to ration care. My Republican Governor weighed in now and said that it would be trouble for Illinois if Medicaid is cut back. Who do they want to cut out? Children, the elderly, people with disabilities. Thousands of hardworking individuals in Illinois will lose access to health coverage. As I said, in fact, Republican Governor Bruce Rauner said that our State ``won't do very well'' if the Republican repeal bill becomes law. The Republican repeal bill breaks the promise made by President Trump to cover more Americans at lower cost. I oppose this bill. I am going to fight tooth and nail to protect our care. And, frankly, I think this bill, as my mother would say, is deader than a door nail.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, well, here we are again, considering legislation that would harm women and families. Let's be clear: House Republicans do not support family planning title X. For years, Republicans have tried to completely eliminate funding for title X through the appropriations process. So think about that. We are debating contraception in 2017--astonishing. Title X provides millions of low- and middle-income men and women with access to reproductive healthcare services. The joint resolution we are voting on today would allow States to discriminate against title X providers who perform abortion with non-Federal funds by removing them from the program, leaving patients with few options for the care they need. Again, let's be clear. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, you need to ensure everyone has access to family planning. Teen pregnancy and the rate of abortion are at historic lows because we have worked to make contraception more affordable and accessible. For over 60 percent of title X patients, the clinics they visit for family planning services are their only regular source of care, and yet we are considering legislation that would result in clinic closures and would prevent men and women from seeing trusted providers in their own communities. Do Republicans oppose cancer screening for cervical breast cancer? Do they oppose STI testing? Do they oppose contraception? The answer seems to be yes because Republicans continue to ignore these facts in their effort to harm women's health. I urge my colleagues to put an end to the war on women and to oppose this very dangerous legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate participating in this Special Order hour about things that, I think, the American people really ought to be caring about. The minute that Donald Trump took the oath of office and put his hand in the air, he was in violation of the law. It is just a fact that the Trump Hotel, which is in the old post office building--there is a very explicit contract that says no elected official may enter into a contract for that hotel and profit from the business in that hotel. There was a lawsuit that was filed. It is still pending. You may not think that is a really big deal, but how about this: What if there were delegations from somewhere else in the world, some country that really wanted to curry favor with the United States of America, and decided a really good way to do it would be to move our delegation to stay at the Trump Hotel? Maybe we could have a big gala, we could have a party, and we could make a lot of money from that. And guess what. Maybe the President of the United States would notice that we are spending money in a hotel from which he gains a profit, and that would be a really swell idea. Well, actually, the Framers of the Constitution thought that was not such a grand idea and very explicitly put into the Constitution something that would prohibit any foreign government from influencing U.S. policy. They were worried about the King of England. They were worried about France. They were worried about other countries having too much influence on the United States by currying favor with the President and the decisionmakers, and so they introduced and put into the Constitution very explicitly what they called the Emoluments Clause in Article I, section 9 of the Constitution. While ``emoluments'' is certainly not a word we use in regular conversations--emoluments, I never used it before this and never heard of it before this, actually--it is a concept that is part of our Constitution, and it is very simple: that no government official should receive benefits of any kind--of any kind--from a foreign government. President Trump is clearly violating that constitutional principle. So, unlike any Presidents before him, President Trump has actually refused to fully separate himself and his family from his business dealings. It is also very unusual, of course, that we haven't seen his tax returns, which has been pretty standard for any President to release his tax returns, and it has been a requirement for the Cabinet that Mr. Trump has exacted from those nominees. Because of his business holdings, Trump and his family are constantly--constantly--receiving benefits from other countries, whether it is foreign governments renting that space at the Trump Hotel in D.C. or the loans and business agreements that the Trump organization has with China, Russia, and many other countries. We don't know them all. We haven't seen them all. That would be in his tax returns and all the different sections of the tax return, his holdings in Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, which he has refused to put into a blind trust. So it is troubling enough that President Trump and his family are profiting off the Presidency, but now it is becoming clearer that this lack of ethics could threaten our national security and national interests. So if you haven't cared until now, you ought to start caring. Look at Russia. Trump has done business in Russia and has remained uncomfortably close to Vladimir Putin. He refuses to release his tax returns, which could clarify the specific financial interests that he has in Russia. President Trump knew his National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, was compromised by Russian intelligence and had misled Vice President Pence; yet Flynn was allowed to remain in one of our most sensitive national security positions until criticism from Congress, the media, and the public became too much to ignore. President Trump continues to gloss over the serious problems that led to Flynn's resignation. Instead, he attacks the messenger and the leaks that brought Flynn's conduct to light. These are bright red flags. These are signs that the President has something to hide. Americans deserve a President who they can trust is putting the country's interests ahead of his own, that he is putting the country's interests instead of another country's interests because that deal might be in his interest. There should be no question over the purity of the President's motives, especially when he is making critical security decisions on behalf of the Nation. If President Trump wants to assure the American people that he deserves our trust, he must be transparent. We need a bipartisan, independent investigation of his conflicts of interest, particularly with Russia, but not exclusively. He must release his tax returns, and he must fully separate himself from his business dealings. The corrupt practices of this administration must stop. Our country and our Constitution demand nothing less.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and her leadership on the Working Families Agenda. Get this: Americans over 44 years of age are more afraid of running out of income in retirement than they are afraid of dying. Median retirement savings in the United States of America is only $2,500. We have a retirement crisis. Only my Republican colleagues haven't gotten the message. The New York Times asked: ``Who'd Want to Limit Retirement Plans?'' and answered with two words: ``House Republicans.'' It isn't just that Republicans haven't made retirement security a priority; they are actually working against it. They oppose the rule that saves retirees up to $17 billion a year, lost to bad investment advice, a rule that simply requires financial advisers to give advice that is in the client's best interest, not their own. Today Republicans are trying to prevent States and cities from expanding private retirement savings. Nearly 1.3 million workers in my State, Illinois, lack job-based retirement savings options. State Senator Daniel Biss won passage of the Illinois Secure Choice Savings Program that creates a retirement plan with automatic deductions that has proven successful in increasing individual retirement savings. Last summer, the U.S. Department of Labor acted to move this plan forward for Illinois and other States. Today we face Republican efforts to block action, to overturn the Department of Labor rule and jeopardize the financial security of 1.3 million Illinois workers and millions of others across the country without access to job-based retirement plans. There is a saying: ``Lead, follow, or get out of the way.'' If my Republican colleagues won't lead or follow, at least they should get out of Illinois' way. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, refugees that are fleeing for their lives are not the enemy. Look at this 3-year-old Syrian boy, Aylan Kurdi, who washed up on a beach in Turkey. He and his older brother and his mother drowned. They were among, literally, thousands of people who drowned escaping the violence that was certain in their home country of Syria. Now the President is trying to keep them out of our country. He is condemning more children like Aylan to their death with this executive order. And in face of this immoral action by the administration, I have witnessed the decency and generosity of people in my district. I was proud to join people of all faiths in rallies to support our refugees and our Muslim neighbors. I was with lawyers who rushed to O'Hare Airport to offer assistance to those who suddenly are detained under the executive order. I have received hundreds of letters. One was from a couple who had joined with 13 friends to welcome and provide assistance to a family that wanted to resettle from Syria. They had collected money. They had collected furniture. They had worked for over a year in order to make this happen, and they finally got word that they were actually going to get a family to come. Then, on January 30, they got official word that the family would not be allowed to enter. And now they don't know what happened to that family. Let me just read the end of that letter. He said: Now we don't know what happened to the family. Because they are Syrian, they are indefinitely banned from the United States. Meanwhile, we have a warm apartment and $12,000 waiting for them. We have rooms full of furniture stockpiled, and no way to get to them. As a group of Chicagoans, as a second-generation American myself, we came together to aid a family in dire need and to affirm the quintessential American values of openness and inclusiveness. I can't stop thinking about that couple, what they are telling their children right now, and where they will sleep tonight. Turning our back on families and children who are fleeing a war is not our best strategic interest as a nation, nor is it in our best interest as decent human beings. Thank you from Maria Demopolis, Chicago, Illinois.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to congressional Republicans' attempt to repeal Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces protections for Federal contract workers. We all know President Trump is no fan of transparency. He has steadfastly refused to disclose his own tax returns, so it is no surprise that he and the Republicans would oppose disclosure of labor, employment, civil rights, and nondiscrimination law violations by bidders for Federal contracts. What I really don't understand is why Members of Congress would ask American taxpayers to subsidize companies that routinely violate our labor laws. Voting for this resolution actually rewards companies that discriminate, stiff their employees on pay, or cut corners on safety, and it puts responsible businesses that play by the rules at a disadvantage. This resolution harms women. Women make up the majority of low-wage workers. Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces protections ensure that our tax dollars do not support sexual harassment and sex discrimination on the job, regular occurrences especially for low-wage working women. This resolution harms veterans, including disabled veterans. Repeal means that we won't know whether a contract bidder routinely violates section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, and Vets First say is ``necessary to prevent discrimination in the workplace and during the hiring process.'' This resolution also harms older workers. To quote AARP: `` . . . age discrimination in the workplace persists as a serious and pervasive problem. The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order is the first executive order since 1964 addressing the obligation of those who receive federal contracts not to discriminate on the basis of age.'' If you don't want your taxpayer dollars to be used to undermine Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces protections, then all Members should oppose this resolution.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of the late Edgar and Nancy Muenzer, co-founders of the Park Ridge Civic Orchestra. To honor their hard work and tireless commitment, the Park Ridge Civic Orchestra will be presenting a ``Founders Memorial Concert'' on Wednesday, February 8, 2017 featuring Chicago Symphony Orchestra violinist David Taylor as guest soloist at The Pickwick Theatre in Park Ridge, Illinois. The Park Ridge Civic Orchestra (PRCOrchestra) features more than 70 professional musicians, renowned soloists, and top-ranked student talents and serves the north and northwest areas of Chicago, its suburbs, and beyond. Founded in 1994 by veteran Chicago Symphony Orchestra first violinist Edgar Muenzer, his wife Nancy, and a cadre of devoted supporters, the PRCOrchestra fulfilled the Muenzer's wish to give back after a rewarding lifetime in professional music. Now led by a group of local business owners, musicians, civic leaders, and others, the PRCOrchestra continues to bring enriching, live classical music to the community. The PRCOrchestra's founder Edgar Muenzer was the orchestra's conductor and music director for two decades from 1994 to 2014. A longtime Park Ridge resident with his wife Nancy, Edgar brought many years of performing, conducting, and teaching to this role. In 2014, Edgar stepped down from the position of Music Director, giving the reins to his son, current PRCOrchestra Music Director Victor Muenzer. He then continued to serve as Music Director Emeritus until his death in 2016. Among the many honors he earned during his illustrious life, Maestro Muenzer was named Conductor of the Year by the Illinois Council of Orchestras. Edgar and his wife Nancy also earned the Illinois Humanities Council Studs Terkel Humanities Service Award for their tireless commitment to bringing inspiring music to the community. Nancy K. Muenzer was the co-founder of the Park Ridge Civic Orchestra and wife of Edgar Muenzer. A driving force behind the Orchestra's successful development, the charismatic Mrs. Muenzer worked tirelessly to inspire and enlist major sponsors and donors in support of the Orchestra. Through Mrs. Muenzer's direct efforts and that of the generous music-lovers she recruited, the PRCOrchestra performed five major concerts each year at the historic Pickwick Theatre in Park Ridge. Mrs. Muenzer also managed an array of special events and smaller concerts in between. Mrs. Muenzer continued in her role until 2014, helping the Orchestra transition to the next generation. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the late Edgar and Nancy Muenzer and the members of the Park Ridge Civic Orchestra for their dedication to cultivating enriching classical music in the community. I congratulate and wish each of them every success in their upcoming ``Founders Memorial Concert.'' Illinois's Ninth Congressional District is proud to be home to the brilliantly talented members of this organization, and for their outstanding gifts, leadership, and service, these members are worthy of the highest praise.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban in light of individuals--women like Faten Diab, a Syrian refugee and former charity work whose family had applied for settlement to the United States but will now not be able to come.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise to offer the motion to recommit on H.R. 7, the so-called No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act. The motion to recommit is very simple. It would amend H.R. 7 to say that nothing in this legislation would allow an insurance company to charge women higher premiums than men just because they are women. In the first few days of the Trump Presidency, we have seen one action after another to discriminate against women, restrict access to health services, and make their care more expensive. We also know that Republicans are determined to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would, once again, allow insurance companies to discriminate against women. Repealing the ACA would be a triple whammy for women. Not only would they have to pay more for their insurance, but their insurance would be less likely to cover the services they need. And these higher costs will take a bigger chunk out of their budget. Before the ACA, insurers were able to exclude services critical to women's health. And we are not just talking about preexisting conditions, which, by the way, often included having a baby or being the victim of domestic violence. The benefit package itself left out medical care critical to women. Only 12 percent of plans in the individual market offered maternity coverage. And some insurance plans that offered that coverage imposed waiting periods of a year or charges of up to $10,000 just for maternity care. And even when maternity care was excluded from any insurance plan, insurers still used gender rating to discriminate against women, charging women more just because they were women, regardless of their benefits. Being a woman was a preexisting condition. Thankfully, the ACA prohibits gender rating. Before the ACA, women were forced to pay between 10 to 57 percent more than men for essentially the same insurance. In my home State of Illinois, women were charged 55 percent more than men for the same coverage. In fact, a 2012 National Women's Law Center study found that 92 percent of best- selling insurance plans were gender rated. A 25-year-old woman in Arkansas was charged 81 percent more than a man for similar coverage. A 40-year-old woman in South Dakota was charged over $1,200 more a year than a 40-year-old man for the same coverage. In Kentucky, women were charged 57 percent more than men for the same coverage. In Texas, they were charged 56 percent more. In Indiana, they were charged 54 percent more. And the list goes on. This study even found that over half of all insurance plans charged women who didn't smoke significantly higher premiums than men of the same age who did smoke. Overall, gender rating cost American women about $1 billion a year. It also harmed businesses with predominantly female employees who were routinely charged more for their insurance coverage. Finally, charging women more for health care is even more devastating when you take into account that women still make only 77 cents to the dollar compared to men. We cannot go back to the days when insurance companies were free to discriminate against women. But that is exactly what Republicans want to do. They want women to pay more for insurance coverage that doesn't include the services they need. So I am asking my colleagues to support the motion to recommit and protect women from discrimination by insurance companies. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes, I am opposed to the bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.