Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding to me and for his commitment to improving the lives of working Americans and retirees. Mr. Speaker, this is a very dangerous bill as 86 percent of Americans believe that we are facing a retirement crisis in this country and as 75 percent are concerned about their own abilities to have secure retirements. More Americans fear outliving their money more than they fear death, and 8 in 10 want us to help them have guaranteed streams of income in retirement. That is why I am just amazed that my Republican colleagues are pushing this resolution of disapproval on a carefully crafted, thoughtfully designed rule to improve retirement security, especially for people who need the help. We have moved to an era when most workers, if they are offered any pensions at all, are given defined contribution options, like self- directed IRAs and 401(k)s. This means that their retirement security relies on the individual decisions they make, and many turn to financial advisers for guidance. They believe that when they pay for advice, that the advice that will be given will be in their best interests. Why shouldn't they believe that? The rule that my Republican colleagues want to overturn would ensure their best interests. What happens when retirement investment advice isn't in the client's best interest? Hard-earned retirement dollars are lost. It is estimated that Americans lose $17 billion a year because of conflicted advice, and individuals could lose nearly 25 percent of their assets over a 35-year period. Working women and men in this country and retirees are struggling, and the ``best interest'' standard is one step to help them. I urge all of my colleagues to stand up for retirement security and reject this dangerous resolution. The ``best interest'' standard shouldn't just apply to financial advisers, it should apply to us here in Congress. Let's vote to protect the best interests of our constituents.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent, Tema Posalska Bauer, on the occasion of her upcoming 100th birthday. Her birthday is especially notable in light of her miraculous survival through the horrors she endured during World War II. At the time that the Nazis invaded Poland in September of 1939, Tema was a young woman of 23 living with her elderly parents and her next oldest sister, Sarah, in the City of Lodz, a city that was home at the time to the second largest Jewish population in Poland. At the time, she had seven other older brothers and sisters who were married with children and living in smaller towns near Lodz. With the occupation by the Nazis, the siblings feared for the safety of their elderly parents and decided that it would be safer for the parents to move to the smaller town where one sister, Gucia, was living with her husband and three sons. Sarah accompanied them on the trip, and Tema was to close the house and follow after the winter. However, before the winter ended, the Nazis created a Jewish ghetto in Lodz in which all Jews had to reside and from which no Jews could leave. Tema never saw her parents or her sister Sarah again. She worked in the Ghetto for four years until she was deported in December of 1943 to a slave labor camp at Skarzysko-Kamienna. Normally a two-hour train ride from Lodz to Skarzysko-Kamienna, the trip actually took three full days. The women were packed into the freight train cars so tightly that there was no room to sit, no water, no food and no bathroom facilities. With the Russians approaching from the west, Skarzysko-Kamienna was liquidated in August of 1944 and the women were sent by freight trains to a slave labor camp in Leipzig, Germany. During an Allied bombing of the camp in February of 1945, Tema was injured--her right arm being severed at the elbow. Though antibiotics were unavailable, she had great luck and strength and survived. Two months later, the camp was liquidated, and she began what turned out to be a six-day death march, that she again miraculously survived. After liberation, she made her way back to Lodz where she found out that of her parents, eight brothers and sisters, their seven spouses and her eighteen nieces and nephews, all had been murdered by the Nazis, most of them gassed to death in the extermination camp at Chelmno--their bodies reduced to ash and bones in the crematoria. She eventually encountered a man she had known in the Ghetto, Morris Bauer. He told her that she need not be worried about the future because he would always take care of her. And, for the rest of his life, he did until he was no longer able to take care of himself. They married and then spent almost four years in a displaced persons camp waiting to emigrate to the United States. They arrived in the United States on October 1, 1949 and settled in Chicago. Tema's beloved husband, Morris, passed away in 1995 shortly before their 50th wedding anniversary from complications from Alzheimer's. She has lived to enjoy her expanding family of two sons, three grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. She remains mentally sharp with an amazing memory and with a keen interest in current events and politics. Tema's 100th birthday is May 5th--the same day the world will observe Holocaust Remembrance Day. As Tema gathers with her family that day to remember and mourn the six million Jews who perished in the Holocaust, including her and Morris' parents, siblings, nieces and nephews, her family also will celebrate the miraculous life and remarkable courage and luck of their family's matriarch, Tema Posalska Bauer. Her life is a blessing and an inspiration to her family and to all who know her.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank my colleague so much for taking the leadership this evening on such an important and central issue. It is really about our democracy. Our country has long been known and respected around the world as a beacon of democracy. We aspire to let every person participate in our system of government and give each person's views and votes equal weight. But today our democracy itself is in jeopardy. Instead of promoting voter participation, States are erecting barriers to keep Americans from voting. Instead of giving people an equal voice in our elections, corporations and the wealthy are claiming outsized influence. The Supreme Court, tasked with protecting our rights, is being crippled by congressional inaction. Over the past days, thousands of Americans have come to Washington to demand that we restore American democracy. I join them in their call for action: Pass the Voting Rights Amendment Act, stop the outsized role that money plays in politics, and fill the vacancy on our Supreme Court. Last year marked the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act broadened access to democracy and fulfilled the promise of the 15th Amendment. It ensured that every American had the opportunity to take part in the democratic process. But in recent years, courts and State legislatures have torn away at these rights. In 2013, the Supreme Court rolled back voter protections with its misguided Shelby County decision, striking down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Before the Shelby County decision, the Voting Rights Act required States with a history of voter discrimination to clear any changes that they wanted to make to their voting laws in advance. What happened when this provision got struck down? No surprise. Certain States rushed to pass new voting restrictions. On the very day of the ruling, Texas officials announced they would implement a photo ID law that had previously been blocked. North Carolina went even further, imposing a strict photo ID law as well as cutting back early voting and reducing the time period for voter registration. This law disproportionately affects communities of color. This November is the first Presidential election since the weakening of the Voting Rights Act. Sixteen States now have new voting restrictions in place. The Voting Rights Amendment Act, introduced by my Republican colleague, Mr. Sensenbrenner, would restore key protections of the Voting Rights Act. Despite bipartisan support for this bill, House leadership has simply failed to take action. The inaction is unforgivable. But voting rights are not the only part of our democratic process that is under attack. Citizens United, another misguided Supreme Court decision, has unleashed a flood of money from rich donors and powerful corporations that is now drowning out the voice of the American people. In the 2014 elections, the top 100 donors to super-PACs gave nearly as much as 4.75 million small donors combined. This election cycle, the Koch brothers alone have pledged to spend almost $900 million. Just in the early phase of the 2016 Presidential race, 158 families were responsible for more than half of all the money raised in Presidential campaigns. The American people want action. They are demanding that we get money out of politics--the big money. Congress continues to ignore the will of the American people. Republican leadership has failed to take legislative action to address the egregious spending allowed by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. For example, they haven't brought up H.R. 20, the Government By the People Act, which would provide matching funds for candidates who agree to rely on small donors to fund their campaigns. This would empower individuals to support candidates and balance the influence of big money. This is the sort of legislation the House ought to be considering. We don't just need legislative fixes, though. Repairing our democracy also requires confirming justices who understand that corporations are not people and money is not speech. But here, too, Republicans are refusing to do their job. On March 16, President Obama fulfilled his constitutional duty--you can read it in the Constitution--by nominating D.C. Circuit Court Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. But even before Garland's nomination was announced--in fact, just about an hour after Judge Antonin Scalia passed away--Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised nothing but obstruction. He said he would not hold a hearing, he would not have a vote, and that this was going to wait until the next election. Republican Senators have refused to hold hearings, they have refused to have an up-or-down vote, and many of them have refused to even meet with the nominee at all. Even those Senate Republicans who haven't publicly endorsed this obstruction are doing the bare minimum. They may have courtesy meetings, they may even say they would support hearings, or maybe even a vote, but words are not enough. We need action, not photo ops. The Constitution makes clear that the President--the sitting President, this President, Barack Obama--nominates judges to the Supreme Court. Then the Senate's job is to advise and consent on the President's nominee. It doesn't say: and you only do it in the first 7 years of a President's term, and you don't do anything in the last year of a President's term. There is simply no excuse for the Senate to resist taking any action. I find it really disrespectful to the American people and I find it disrespectful to this President that they are saying that he cannot have the right; as every other President in history, even in the last year of his term, has had to nominate and have considered, and, in fact, all of those nominated in the last year were actually approved. So there is no excuse for the Senate to resist taking any action. Senate Republicans are putting politics ahead of the Constitution. That is not democracy. Big donors are not democracy. Taking away voting rights is not democracy. It is time for this House of Representatives to really represent the American people, listen to their calls for change, and take action to strengthen our democracy. Again, I thank my colleague for yielding.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank and congratulate Juan Lorenzo Hinojosa, PhD, for his founding of Solidarity Bridge, the Evanston-based non-profit, now in its 16th year. Through this organization, Dr. Hinojosa has dedicated himself to transforming lives by promoting solidarity and justice, harnessing the good will of generous people in the United States and in Bolivia to heal and empower in a spirit of mutuality and profound respect. I am proud that many who participate in the Solidarity Bridge mission as physicians, nurses, interpreters, chaplains, and helpers are residents of the 9th Congressional District of Illinois. In 1999, Dr. Hinojosa launched the first Solidarity Bridge medical mission trip to Bolivia. Over the next 16 years, guided by his extraordinary vision and leadership, Solidarity Bridge grew far beyond its initial purpose of bringing medical volunteers on short-term mission trips. In close collaboration with medical communities in the U.S. and in South America, and with its sister organization, Puente de Solidaridad, Solidarity Bridge developed four year-round programs in Bolivia to provide high-complexity surgery, as well as a Center for the Development of Neurosurgery. Through those efforts, lifesaving and life-transforming care has been provided for over 60,000 people who otherwise would not have had access to the care they desperately need. Dr. Hinojosa is Bolivian-American and a naturalized citizen of the United States. His memory of the poverty and suffering he witnessed as a child never ceased to pull on his heart. Over many years, his longing to serve the impoverished people of his native land was strengthened by his Catholic faith, with its focus on compassion and justice. Then, in 1999, Dr. Hinojosa met Dr. Enrique ViaReque, also a Bolivian-American living in the Chicago area, and, with his invaluable help, was finally able to fulfill his heart's longing by founding Solidarity Bridge. Dr. Hinojosa and Dr. ViaReque are outstanding examples of the important contributions immigrants make to the social fabric of the United States of America. One of the greatest qualities of our citizens is the responsibility we feel to share our material abundance with those who have less. Dr. Hinojosa nurtured that sense of responsibility in others and created a highly effective means by which the abundant good will and generosity of volunteers, donors, hospitals, and medical supply companies are channeled to serve those who live in poverty. Through Solidarity Bridge, he has promoted and strengthened bonds of solidarity among thousands of people of good will in the United States and in Bolivia. Dr. Hinojosa has created a bridge of solidarity between diverse individuals and communities, a bridge that enriches and heals every person who walks on it, whatever their role may be. I invite my colleagues to join me in thanking Dr. Juan Lorenzo Hinojosa and congratulating him on the fruitful work he has accomplished.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, during Roll Call vote numbers 130 through 135, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Roll Call No. H.R./H. Res. Vote ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 130.............................. H.R. 4314.......... Yes 131.............................. H. Res. 653........ No 132.............................. H. Res. 653........ No 133.............................. H.R. 4742.......... Yes 134.............................. H.R. 4755.......... Yes 135.............................. H.R. 4336.......... Yes ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember my mentor and precious friend Dr. Quentin Young, who passed away last week. Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle called him, ``a relentless advocate of fairness and justice for all citizens.'' In his book, County, Dr. David Ansell describes Dr. Young as a ``legend,'' a role model who attracted residents from all over the country to train with him at Chicago's Cook County Hospital. I am proud to have known Quentin Young as an advocate and as my personal physician. Throughout his life, Quentin Young fought to eliminate discrimination and to create a society rooted firmly in justice. As a young doctor, he was deeply troubled by the segregation he saw in Chicago hospitals, and he founded the Committee to End Discrimination to end it. He founded the Medical Committee for Human Rights to provide medical care to civil rights and anti-war advocates. He served as president of the American Public Health Association. And he helped lead other physicians in the push for universal health care, creating the Physicians for a National Health Program, which continues his legacy for medical care where ``everyone is in, and nobody is left out.'' Quentin Young inspired many of us to agitate for social and economic change, to literally go the extra mile. In 2001, he walked 167 miles across Illinois to champion the call for universal health care. Where Quentin Young saw problems, he also saw solutions. When patients came to him after suffering serious medical problems from back-alley abortions, he joined the battle to win legal abortion. Today, at a time when abortion rights continue to be attacked, it is important to remember his words to us, ``It's not a choice of abortion or no abortion, but safe abortion or unsafe abortion.'' Quentin Young also understood that the fight for universal health care is part of a larger fight: to eliminate poverty, to make sure that every child receives quality education and to guarantee democracy throughout our society. As a young man, he registered African American voters during Mississippi Freedom Summer and participated in one of the 1965 marches from Selma to Montgomery. Throughout his life, he pushed for voting rights and to make our electoral system responsive to the needs of voters, not the demands of the wealthiest campaign contributors. In Chicago and across the country, there are countless individuals like me whose lives have been made better because of Quentin Young and who are committed to paying-forward the lessons he taught us. He has inspired us not just to fight for economic and social justice but to build the movements that will bring results. While he will be greatly missed, we will continue that fight.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Art of Living Foundation for its thirty-five years of promoting human values around the world and to wish them well as they kick off their World Culture Festival on March 11th in New Delhi, India. I'd also like to recognize all of the volunteers around the world and in New Delhi who have spent countless hours organizing this truly magnificent event. As a United States Congresswoman, I am focused on improving the lives of girls and women across the globe. I applaud the Art of Living Foundation's programs that focus on empowering girls and women by giving them access to education, vocational skills training, and self- development programs. The vision and actions of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and the Foundation to empower marginalized girls and women is a positive force for strengthening our future. The World Culture Festival will bring together individuals from 155 diverse countries to promote peace and unity. Thank you for your tireless work and for your commitment to making the world a more peaceful and harmonious place. Please accept my best wishes for a wonderful World Culture Festival and congratulations to the Art of Living Foundation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Women's History Month by highlighting the exemplary life of Frances E. Willard. Frances Willard earned her place in history by pioneering the temperance movement, breaking barriers in the field of education and leading the movement to obtain women's right to vote. Her suffrage arguments hinged on her feminist interpretation of Scripture. She said: ``God sets male and female side by side throughout His realm.'' Although Frances was born in Churchville, New York, in 1839, she quickly made her way to my hometown of Evanston, Illinois, where, among other things, she was the first woman college president in the country to confer degrees, the second president of the national Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and a founder of the National Council of Women. In 1905, the great State of Illinois chose to honor her memory by making her the first woman whose statue appears in the National Statuary Hall Collection. That statue still stands today--just a few feet from us--where she is now a constant reminder of the powerful role of women in American history. This Women's History Month, let us honor the lives of women like Frances Willard who came before us to create equality for women by helping to give us the right to vote, and let's do it by expanding that role. When women succeed, America succeeds.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate Mrs. Lillian Gerstner, who is being recognized by the Village of Skokie for her 25 years of hard work and dedication to make the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center the wonderful place it is today. An only child born to two Holocaust survivors, Rosalie and Moses Polus, Mrs. Gerstner came to Evanston in 1969 to pursue a degree in theater and a secondary school teaching certification at Northwestern University. Mrs. Gerstner married her husband, Mr. Alan Gerstner in 1976, and has two children, Michael and Lisa, born in 1980 and 1983, respectively. Mrs. Gerstner began volunteering at the Holocaust Memorial Foundation of Illinois on Main Street In Skokie in 1985. With her young daughter Lisa in tow, she began her services by stuffing envelopes, typing, and filing. When Lisa began school, Mrs. Gerstner's duties increased to include production of the monthly newsletter. Mrs. Gerstner was a regular volunteer for years, feeling very much at home among the small staff and the survivors who visited. When staff began requesting that Mrs. Gerstner join their team after the executive director, Ms. Pearl Karp, retired, Mrs. Gertsner declined initially, unable to take on a full time job. In the meantime, Mrs. Gertsner and the rest of the Foundation's staff worked tirelessly to convince Illinois legislatures to mandate a school curriculum inclusive of the Holocaust. All of their efforts paid off when, on January 1, 1999, Illinois became the first state in the nation to pass a Holocaust Education Mandate. On January 31, 1991, to the delight of the Foundation's officers, Mrs. Gertsner accepted her third offer to work as Executive Director. She was put in charge of a three-person staff and began working to make the Foundation's vision a reality. Her first year was focused on working with the Foundation's Education Director to provide professional development for teachers who were to begin implementing the newly enacted Illinois Holocaust Education Mandate. Over the years, the Holocaust Memorial Foundation of Illinois accumulated many memorable achievements; they include, but are not limited to: Production of four documentaries, one of which--``Choosing One's Way--Resistance in Auschwitz-Birkenau''--received the Chicago International Film Festival Hugo Award in 1994; onsite training to over 2,000 educators to aid them in their teachings on the Holocaust; speaking to tens of thousands annually through the Speaker's Bureau; conducting annual creative expression competitions for children; taping survivor interviews, starting in 1991; conducting unique Yom HaShoah observances within the community; supervising Holocaust Expression Theater, a program to aid high school students in the development and performance of Holocaust dramatic material; and welcoming non-Jewish volunteers from the Action Reconciliation Service for Peace starting in 1997. Mrs. Gerstner was an asset in the transition from the small Holocaust Memorial Foundation of Illinois on Main Street to the huge Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center that can be seen today, in Skokie, Illinois. From her work as site director for the Main Street facility until it closed in 2008, to Director of Special Projects and then Director of Public Programs in 2015, Mrs. Gerstner has truly been indispensable in both garnering cultural acknowledgment for the Holocaust, as well as educating and engaging youth and adults in its events and activities. Mrs. Gerstner is a remarkable woman who has dedicated 25 years of her life to the success of the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center. I want to congratulate her for being recognized by the Village of Skokie during their Board Meeting on March 7, 2016; she is an outstanding member of society who has brought much-needed attention to the Holocaust both within her town, and nationally. I am proud to honor her today for her achievements, and look forward to all she will continue to do in the future.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 84 on February 23, 2016, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 83 on February 23, 2016, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The previous speaker said that this is all about choice. I agree with that. I think it is all about choice and about having the kind of information to make a proper choice. Let me just give you an example of a menu from a SUBWAY in Montgomery County, Maryland. This is from SUBWAY, which lists the calories in a standardized way, and that is what the original regulations and law required before there being this confusing change in the legislation. It reads, for example, that a SUBWAY Melt is 380 calories and that a Chicken and Bacon Ranch is 580 calories. Now, one would not necessarily assume that a SUBWAY Melt, which sounds cheesy and kind of rich, would, actually, have fewer calories--by 200--than a Chicken and Bacon Ranch. I think it is good for me and for many consumers to go in and to be able to see that and know that is going to be the standard way that calories are presented. This legislation would allow such things as this. The covered establishments could make their own decisions about what is a serving size. It wouldn't be the same from establishment to establishment. For example, this allows covered establishments to not list the total number of servings for an item on the menu, like a platter of a certain appetizer. For example, an advertiser could list the calories as 400 calories but not disclose that one platter--just one order--has three servings, for a total of 1,200 calories--400 versus 1,200 calories. This presents real confusion and, I would argue, misinformation to the consumer. More and more Americans are eating food outside of the home that is prepared by restaurants or by chain grocery stores where they have a section on prepared foods. In order to have complete decisionmaking power, it is very important that we have the calories that are there and posted. Obviously, this is not overburdening, certainly, small businesses, because this isn't about small businesses. We have the largest State in the country already having these regulations, operating smoothly. We have got the second largest city in the country--the city of New York-- and we have the State of Vermont, very different kinds of locations that are being able to comply with the FDA regulations and the law that we want to go into effect next year. We do not need H.R. 2017 to confuse and disarm consumers and not provide them with the information they need. I have another menu from Specialty Pizza: build your own pizza. What it has is a range of calories; so it would not be overburdening for every single different iteration of a pizza to have all of the different calories. There are options and there is flexibility under the legislation. It doesn't need to be changed and undermined by H.R. 2017. If we are serious about dealing with one of the most important, expensive, and ubiquitous diseases in the United States of America-- diabetes. One of the greatest problems that we face is obesity in adults and especially in children--then I think we owe it to our families to make sure that we do not pass H.R. 2017, a special interest-driven bill to decrease consumer access to important nutrition and calorie information. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered today by Representatives McMorris Rodgers and Cardenas. This amendment would further undermine consumer confidence in the nutrition information they receive from restaurants and retail food establishments. One could call it flexibility, which actually the current legislation provides; and others, including me, would call it adding confusion. Under the Federal menu labeling law, restaurants and retail food establishments are supposed to have a reasonable basis for determining calorie and nutrition information for their menu items. This can be done using a nutrient database, such as USDA's National Nutrient Database, cookbooks, recipes, nutrition fact labels, or FDA's nutrient values, among others. Again, the FDA is allowing significant flexibility, as it is, in how establishments determine this information. What is most important to the agency is that this information is accurate and consistent. Some stakeholders have raised concerns about changes to the nutrition information based on an employee being too heavyhanded with one ingredient, like pickles, or perhaps not following the recipe appropriately. We can all understand that in cooking, this type of flexibility is needed. FDA's guidance addresses the question of how closely standard menu items must match the nutrient values, advising that an establishment ``must take reasonable steps to ensure that how you prepare your product . . . and how you serve your product are the same as those used to determine the calorie and nutrient declarations.'' The McMorris Rodgers-Cardenas amendment further undermines the ``reasonable basis'' standard outlined in H.R. 2017 and in FDA's final rule by permitting any type of variation for any reason from the nutrient content disclosed to the actual nutrient content in the standard menu item. Under this amendment, a restaurant would be able to change their recipe or how they prepare the food or swap out one ingredient for another and not have to change the nutrient information they disclose to account for these variations. This amendment would also allow for further inconsistencies from restaurant to restaurant or grocery store to grocery store, as what might be a permissible variation to one restaurant or one grocery store may not be permissible to others, again, potentially creating an uneven playing field among the industry. It is also important to note that this amendment is inconsistent with requirements for food labeling under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This law requires that food labeling be truthful and not misleading. If nutrient content disclosures can vary for any reason to any extent, it would undermine such requirement in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a requirement that the food industry has long had to meet. As we have said all along, for calorie and nutrition information to be valuable to consumers, it must be accurate and it must be consistent. If consumers have no reason to believe that what is disclosed by a restaurant is accurate, then the disclosure of nutrient information is rendered meaningless. I believe FDA's guidance has provided a great deal of flexibility for how nutrient content should be disclosed, and I know the agency is committed to working with covered establishments to meet the requirement of providing accurate, consistent nutrition information in a way that is feasible for the establishment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I yield the gentlewoman from Connecticut as much time as she may consume.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, there were so many falsehoods, really, in what my colleague across the aisle said. We have evidence in California, the city of New York, and Vermont that absolutely restaurants can comply. It is not about small businesses, about 20 or more establishments with the same name. This idea of 50 percent online, this is not the vast majority of their information online. It is 50 percent. We already know that 49 percent of orders at these establishments are done in person. What about those people who come in? Are they not entitled to the same thing that is in other restaurants? Mr. Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2017, the so-called Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act. Far from common sense, this unnecessary legislation would deny consumers critical information about the food that we eat. I began my career a long time ago as a consumer advocate, joining together with a small group of housewives to get retailers to put expiration dates on the products they sell. This was way back in 1970, when every single item in the grocery store was code dated. Now expiration dates are on nearly every single product because this change was good not only for consumers, but it was good for the retailers. They were able to control their inventory much better--less waste because dates are on the food. We can also control our refrigerators a little bit better as well. Consumers can make better decisions with better information, and retailers can better control their inventory. Similarly, I believe menu labeling would be helpful to both consumers and retail food establishments, as more and more people are asking for this information and making smart decisions. At a time when over 78 million adult Americans are obese and the estimated cost of obesity in the United States is $147 billion a year, we should be embracing efforts to reduce this enormous cost to our healthcare system. In fact, a recent Harvard study found restaurant menu calorie labeling could save over $4.6 billion in healthcare costs over 10 years. That is not chump change. Countless consumer and public health organizations oppose H.R. 2017. That includes the American Diabetes Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Public Health Association, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Supporters claim that menu labeling requirements would be too difficult to implement. That is what I heard from my colleague. But we know this isn't true. Why? Because California, New York City, the State of Vermont, and several counties around the country have successfully implemented menu labeling. Only chain restaurants with 20 or more locations operating under the same name must post calorie information. So this is not about small businesses must post calorie information. Many of these chains have already had to comply with menu labeling in the places where it is currently required. In addition, the National Restaurant Association has long supported menu labeling, and consumers find this to be an asset. Claims that implementation of menu labeling has been rushed or has not allowed industry to weigh in are simply false. It has been 6 years since the law first passed, giving industry plenty of time to weigh in with the FDA and implement this law. The FDA has already issued a 1-year extension, and the FY16 omnibus delayed implementation even further. The FDA has allowed for plenty of industry participation through this 6-year process, and their final regulations provide a great deal of flexibility. H.R. 2017 would not only decrease consumer access to calorie information, but it would allow for inconsistent or confusing menu information. This legislation, for example, allows food establishments to simply make up their own serving sizes. For example, the bill would allow establishments to list the calories for one chicken wing as opposed to an order of chicken wings and wouldn't require the total number of calories to be listed. We have also heard that many establishments, especially chain pizza restaurants, claim that menu labeling would be too difficult for them to account for all the variations in their menu offerings. But let's be clear. Pizza chains only need to post calories for the standard menu items they list on their menu boards, not every possible pizza combination. So clearly, California, Vermont, and the City of New York have figured it out. I also took it upon myself to come up with an easy template for pizza restaurants to use and that is free of charge. I am not going to charge them. It shows how easy it is for them to clearly display the calorie information and account for the different pizza options. You can see right here. So we have one slice of cheese pizza. I just made up these calories. I think they are way too low. But let's say one slice of cheese pizza is 250 calories. God bless them if they can do that. So then, for sausage, you would add calories; mushrooms, you would add calories; pepperoni, add calories; onion. I think it is rather attractive, easy to read, and important for consumers. Pizza is undeniably one of the most common menu items in America. On any given day, one out of every eight Americans eats pizza--one out of eight. The United States spends $37 billion a year on pizza, which accounts for one-third of the global pizza market. H.R. 2017 still requires chain pizza restaurants to calculate the calories for their menu items; so, clearly, it can't be that difficult to come up with this information. Instead, this bill would allow them to present calorie information in a deceptive manner and restrict customer access to this information, depending on where they place an order. Given how often pizza is consumed, it is critical that consumers have access to accurate calorie information at all points of sale. More and more, people are planning their caloric intake and making healthier decisions for themselves. We should be encouraging this and providing consumers with the information they need to make smart decisions about their health. So I encourage my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary bill that only serves to harm and confuse consumers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier). I am really glad to introduce Mark DeSaulnier, who has experience with this particular legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I yield the gentleman from California an additional 1 minute.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the wonderful consumer advocate who has been fighting issues on nutrition and consumer information for such a long time and who is so knowledgeable about the importance of information for consumers.