Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5247 because it actually creates a dangerous back door around the Food and Drug Administration approval process and it ignores that there is a safe pathway for terminally ill patients to get the treatment that they need. This bill denies patients what they really need, which is safe and effective treatments. This bill strips away important safeguards in the name of helping patients. It is not patient friendly. That is why 78 patients and doctor groups are all opposed to this legislation, like the American Cancer Society, the National Brain Tumor Society, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, and the Vietnam Veterans of America. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this 5-page list of the opposing groups. Groups Opposed to Right to Try Legislation, ADNP Kids Research Foundation, AIDS Action Baltimore, Alliance for Aging Research, Alliance for Regenerative Medicine, American Academy of Neurology, American Association of Justice, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Lung Association, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Syringomyelia and Chiari Alliance Project, Amyloidosis Support Groups, Association for Creatine Deficiencies, Benign Essential Blepharospasm Research Foundation, Biomarin, Bonnie J. Addario Lung Cancer Foundation, Breast Cancer Action, Bridge the Gap--SYNGAP Education and Research Foundation, CancerCare, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund, Charlotte and Gwenyth Gray Foundation to Cure Batten Disease, Children's Cause for Cancer Advocacy, Children's Cardiomyopathy Foundation, Congenital Hyperinsulinism International, CurePSP. Cutaneous Lymphoma Foundation, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Defeat MSA, The Desmoid Tumor Research Foundation, The Disability Rights Legal Center, Dupl5q Alliance, Dysautonomia Foundation, Equal Access for Rare Disorders, Fight Colorectal Cancer, FORCE: Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Former FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, Former FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, Friedreich's Ataxia Research Alliance (FARA), Friends of Cancer Research, Georgia State University College of Law, The Global Foundation for Peroxisomal Disorders, Glutl Deficiency Foundation, The Guthy-Jackson Charitable Foundation, Hemophilia Federation of America, Hematology/ Oncology Pharmacy Association, HLRCC Family Alliance, Hope for Hypothalamic Hamartomas, Hyper IgM Foundation, Inc., International Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva (FOP) Association, International Myeloma Foundation. International Pemphigus and Pemphigoid Foundation, International Society for Stem Cell Research, International Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia Foundation (IWMF), The Isaac Foundation, Jack McGovern Coats' Disease Foundation, The LAM Foundation, The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Lymphoma Research Foundation, Li-Fraumeni Syndrome Association (LFS Association / LFSA), LUNGevity Foundation, Max Cure Foundation, M-CM Network, Mattie Miracle Cancer Foundation, MitoAction, MLD Foundation, Moebius Syndrome Foundation, The MSA Awareness Shoe, Mucolipidosis Type IV Foundation, The Myelin Project, Myotonic Dystrophy Foundation, National Brain Tumor Society, National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, National Consumers League, National Health Council. National MPS Society, National Niemann-Pick Disease Foundation, National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD), National Patient Advocate Foundation, National Physicians Alliance, National PKU Alliance, National PKU News, National Women's Health Network, Neurofibromatosis Northeast, NYU Langone Health, Operation ASHA, Our Bodies Ourselves, PRP Alliance, Inc., Prevent Cancer Foundation, Public Citizen, Rare and Undiagnosed Network (RUN), Sarcoma Foundation of America, Scleroderma Foundation, The Snyder-Robinson Foundation, Sofia Sees Hope, SSADH Association, Susan G. Komen, TargetCancer Foundation, Treatment Action Group, The Turner Syndrome Society. TMJA (Temporomandibular Joint Disorders patient organization), United Leukodystrophy Foundation, United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation (UMDF), University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Veterans Health Council, Vietnam Veterans of America, VHL Alliance, Washington Advocates for Patient Safety, Woody Matters, Worldwide Syringomyelia & Chiari Task Force, Yale School of Public Health.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, as Congress fails to advance commonsense gun safety legislation, I would like to share a letter from a young constituent of mine, Bella, from Skokie, Illinois. Bella recently had a lockdown at her school. She writes: ``While my peers and I crowded in the corner of my classroom, my mind instantly thought about the rise in school shootings in 2018. I thought, `Am I going to be part of that statistic?'. . . . This lockdown made me realize that something like that could happen to anyone anywhere. Please do something.'' Well, Bella, we have solutions that are supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans: banning assault weapons, passing comprehensive background checks. Students and parents around the country are telling us to do something. It is time, now, for Congress to listen.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and thank Judge Patricia M. Logue for her extraordinary leadership in establishing the civil rights of LGBTQ Americans and for her service to the state of Illinois. In 1993, Pat brought the fight for LGBTQ civil rights to the heartland when she opened the Midwest Regional Office of Lambda Legal in Chicago. Over the next fourteen years, Pat built the office into a formidable force. Working with cooperating attorneys from law firms across the Midwest, Pat won groundbreaking legal victories that helped redefine equality and freedom for students, parents, and families throughout the Midwest. Pat's deep understanding of constitutional law, ability to select and advance compelling cases, and brilliant strategic thinking made her a leading voice of the LGBTQ civil rights movement. She has been a hero to many in the Chicagoland area and across the country, including to me. I am one of many who have relied on Pat to inform us and to inspire us. In 1995, Pat helped win the right for gay men and lesbians to adopt children in Illinois. Four years later, Pat acted swiftly to preserve that right against a rogue circuit court whose extraordinary actions put adoptions for three small children at risk. In two separate cases involving lesbian couples, the judge disregarded social workers and court-appointed guardians who testified that the children were thriving in these couples' care and ``highly recommended'' the adoptions. Instead of crediting these experts, the judge appointed the Family Research Council--an organization that opposes all gay and lesbian adoptions--to represent the children's best interests. Pat immediately appealed these rulings and, minutes after hearing her argument, a unanimous three-judge panel moved to affirm the adoptions for both families. Reading from the bench, Judge Morton Zwick rebuked the lower court's rulings as ``an inexcusable injustice'' and a discredit to the ``people of Illinois.'' Pat played a similarly critical role in securing protections for students. For four years, Jamie Nabozny endured extraordinary cruelty and abuse at his Wisconsin high school. Students urinated on him, pretended to rape him, and at one point beat him so badly that he required surgery. Jamie asked for help, but school officials told him that this was what he could expect for being gay. When Jamie sued, the school argued that it was not legally obligated to protect gay students from harassment. Pat took Jamie's case on appeal and won the nation's first ruling that schools cannot turn a blind eye to anti-gay abuse in the landmark 1996 case Nabozny v. Podlesny. By protecting students from anti-gay harassment and abuse, Pat opened the door for the gay-straight alliances that now flourish in high schools and colleges across the nation. Pat was one of the lead lawyers in Lawrence v. Texas. At the heart of the majority decision in Lawrence is the understanding that the Constitution's fundamental protections of liberty, equality, and freedom are guaranteed to all Americans. Affirmation of the equal dignity and respect of LGBTQ Americans set the stage for the Supreme Court's 2015 decision to recognize marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges. When Pat opened Lambda's Midwest office twenty-five years ago, law and public policy reflected stereotypes and prejudice against the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. Children were removed from gay and lesbian parents; LGBTQ workers were denied employment or fired from their jobs; and elected officials cited state sodomy laws to deny equal protection under the law. To win cases for clients and lasting change for the nation, Pat helped change that landscape by opening minds and hearts to the realities of LGBTQ lives. She did this time and again, changing public attitudes and legal policies and proving that we are stronger as a nation when we recognize equality and freedom for all. In 2007, and after leading Lambda Legal's Midwest office for fourteen years, Pat was named as an Associate Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Pat brought the same clear-eyed sense of justice and fairness to the bench, where she has served in the Domestic Relations Division. Pat has enriched the lives of thousands of individuals, couples and families--those she represented directly and the many others who have benefitted from the landmark systemic changes brought about by her work--creating a lasting legacy of opportunity and hope for generations to come. Pat's life and work are a call to action, a reminder that each of us has the power to effect significant change. For her leadership and courage, her intellect and compassion, we owe Patricia M. Logue a debt of gratitude.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today is the Anti-Hunger Day of Action, and I rise to support the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which helps feed 40 million Americans. We live in the richest country in the world, yet many Americans struggle to get nutritious food to feed their families, including 1 out of 5 American children. President Trump's budget would worsen the problem by cutting SNAP by $213 billion over 10 years. The President's proposal would also replace families' flexible monthly SNAP benefits with food boxes that contain no fresh produce. It basically puts people on rations. So I ask my Republican colleagues: Did you really come to Congress to take food out of the mouths of hungry people, hungry children? Who are you? Ending hunger in America is not a matter of resources; it is a matter of political will. We must invest in our nutrition programs to make sure that no one's plate goes empty in America.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 620, which would violate the 28-year-old Americans with Disabilities Act by allowing public places to bar access to people with disabilities. H.R. 620 would actually allow barriers for the disabled to stay in place as long as ``substantial progress'' is made to remove them, whatever that means. The ADA was a compromise, giving the disability community access and helping businesses to comply by giving them tax credits and training. H.R. 620 undoes that compromise, making it virtually impossible to enforce the ADA's goal of fairness and inclusion; and that is why the AARP, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the National Council on Independent Living, and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities oppose this bill. It is why the National Organization of Nurses with Disabilities ``believes that H.R. 620 represents a downward spiral of the Americans With Disabilities Act and will impact people with disabilities' freedom of access . . . across the United States.'' And it is why 55 Illinois--where I am from--disability groups, led by Access Living, whose president, Marca Bristo, my personal hero, helped enact the Americans with Disabilities Act, she says and they say: ``H.R. 620 . . . would fundamentally harm our Nation's progress toward an accessible and integrated society. The bill telegraphs to individuals with disabilities that . . . their inclusion is not important.'' Let's show people with disabilities that they do matter, that they shouldn't be locked out of restaurants or sporting events or job opportunities, that they should not be treated as second-class citizens in the American civil justice system. Show your commitment to the ADA and to civil rights, and vote ``no.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on February 6, 2018, Crain's Chicago Business published an op-ed, ``The looming crisis in health care'' by Sara McElmurry, a nonresident fellow for immigration at Chicago Council on Global Affairs. The piece highlights the effect that cancellation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and failure to extend Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) would have on Midwesterners' access to home care. I urge my colleagues to read this op-ed and consider the human consequences of anti-immigrant policies. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following: [From Crain's Chicago Business, Feb. 6, 2018] The Looming Crisis in Health Care (By Sara McElmurry) When the White House unveiled a hard-line plan last week to choke off immigration, it issued a threat to a crucial pipeline of Midwestern workers: home health care aides. In the crosshairs is a region that's graying at a rapid clip yet stubbornly conflicted about immigrants--a region where foreign-born workers punch well above their weight. Immigrants are currently 24 percent of the nation's home health aides. And while they make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, more immigrants are in their prime working age and have a higher rate of job participation compared to their native-born peers, representing 17 percent of the overall workforce, according to a new report by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Examining the mushrooming demand in one industry--home health--illustrates the crisis to come. Analysts expect 1.1 million of these jobs to come online by 2026 as America's population of seniors rises to 71.5 million by 2030. Chicago, Columbus, Minneapolis and Cleveland are already four of the top five metropolitan areas with the highest employment levels for the occupation. But in a region that has lost nearly a quarter of its native-born working-age population since 2000, where will the Midwest find new workers to meet the demand? Home health aides log long, physically demanding hours taking care of people who cannot care for themselves and helping families who need extra hands to care for loved ones. They bathe and feed ailing clients, check vitals, monitor medications, and change bedpans and bedsheets. These jobs are certainly not glamorous and decidedly hard to fill, given the physically--and emotionally--challenging duties. While many home health aides complete on-the-job training and hold professional certificates, the positions often require only a high school degree and no previous work experience, making them an accessible entry point into the U.S. labor force for immigrants and refugees. Yet these so-called ``low-skilled'' workers will prove difficult to replace if the pipeline of immigrants suddenly slows. Home health aides earn a mean $23,840 annually in Illinois. Improved pay and benefits should be top of employers' to-do lists but may prove futile in attracting aging U.S.-born workers, particularly Midwesterners, who are closing in on retirement themselves. Yet the U.S. immigration system is increasingly hostile to the foreign-born talent needed to fill the gaps. The fast- approaching end to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals on March 5, coupled with the Trump administration's cancellation of many Temporary Protected Status programs, could hit health care hard. One in five DACA recipients is employed in health care, and many TPS holders--especially among the 50,000 Haitians who received TPS after an earthquake leveled the island in 2010--work in home health care. Moving forward, many would-be home health aides will not meet the lofty criteria of the points-based immigration systems being championed by the White House. And if the administration is successful in implementing its plans to curb family-based immigration, end the ``diversity'' visa lottery and dismantle other elements of our immigration system as outlined in last week's State of the Union address, the pool of foreign-born health workers will be further compromised. In recent years, the Midwest has led the charge to bring more immigrant workers into health care. Local nonprofits like Chicago's Institute del Progreso Latino have pioneered immigrant-friendly pipeline programs that provide language skills and certifications for in-demand health care careers. Several Midwestern states, including Illinois, have made higher education more accessible for immigrants by offering in-state tuition rates at public institutions. Missouri and Minnesota have created licenses and policies that help more qualified immigrants enter tough-to-fill health care jobs. These innovative local programs are ripe to be scaled nationally. But instead, the federal government's immigration crackdown threatens their success by pushing out current work-authorized immigrants and limiting the channels for new workers to enter the country to replace them.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to H.R. 772. This bill is completely unnecessary, overly prescriptive, and would deny consumers critical information about the food that they eat. At a time when our country is facing an obesity epidemic--I would say, really, crisis--we should not be undermining efforts to educate consumers about the nutritional value of foods, including calories. As a country, we pay a high price for obesity. It is estimated that medical costs for obesity top $190.2 billion, annually. Childhood obesity alone is responsible for $14 billion in direct medical costs. We should be embracing efforts to reduce this enormous cost to our healthcare system. A Harvard study found restaurant menu labeling could prevent up to 41,000 cases of childhood obesity and could save over $4.6 billion in healthcare costs over 10 years. So if you want to eat pizza and fries, that is great, but why not have the opportunity to know how many calories are in that pizza and fries? You should be able to have that information. More information for consumers is a good thing. The menu labeling law that passed in 2010 requires chain restaurants with 20 or more locations to provide consumers with basic nutritional information like calorie content for standard food and beverage items on menus. Since then, the FDA has been working to implement this rule only to face numerous delays along the way. Research has shown that calorie information can help people make healthier choices, and 80 percent of Americans support providing this type of calorie information on the menu. But far from common sense, the legislation we are considering today would undermine the law. H.R. 772 takes us backwards by undermining the law and further delaying consumer protections. This is not about flexibility. This bill just gives cover to bad actors and special interests that do not want to comply with the law. First, it would allow food establishments to display calorie information in ways that would only serve to confuse and mislead customers. It allows the food establishment to set arbitrary serving sizes and cut the calorie count way below what a normal person would eat. Without standardized calorie reporting for menu items, people will have a tough time figuring out and computing nutrition information and comparing across items. It is deceptive to label an entree or a muffin as multiple servings because we all know that they are mostly consumed by one person in one sitting. Second, it would deny consumers the opportunity to view calorie information and other nutritional information regardless of how or where they purchase food from a chain restaurant. Not only does it allow deceptive serving size manipulation, this bill would allow food establishments to make that information difficult to find. Calorie labeling is not useful if it is posted somewhere that it will not be seen. Provisions in this bill would deny customers nutritional information from not only inside a pizza chain, but inside fast-food and other chain restaurants if the majority of their orders are placed offsite, like on the telephone or online. For example, under this bill, a restaurant or similar retail food establishment could have the option to only list nutritional information online or via some other remote-access menu, thereby denying consumers who order in a brick-and-mortar location access to the information. Speed limits are not useful if they are hidden on a highway, and calorie counts cannot help if they are concealed from the public. Finally, it has been nearly 8 years since the original menu labeling requirements were passed, but this bill would once again delay the final menu labeling rules and send the FDA back to the drawing board. The FDA has already put forth a proposed rule, solicited comments, and worked with stakeholders to finalize the menu labeling rule. In fact, just this past November, FDA published new draft guidance intended to help answer any of the outstanding questions regarding compliance. This guidance included sample menus and pictures to help food establishments tackle how to label for a variety of ingredients like multiple pizza toppings. This rule has been delayed long enough. The final menu labeling regulations should go into effect as scheduled in May of this year. Countless businesses, restaurants, and other retail food establishments have already invested time and money into compliance with the current menu labeling rules, and it would be irresponsible to further delay implementation of this important rule. This bill is another handout to businesses and an affront to consumers. It will keep consumers in the dark about the nutritional information that they need and create consumer and industry confusion. H.R. 772 would weaken an important tool intended to help Americans make informed food choices at a time when obesity and other nutrition- related health problems are at crisis levels. That is why countless consumer and public health organizations oppose this bill, including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Nurses Association, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Consumers Union, and the Trust for America's Health. All of these health organizations oppose this legislation because it is not good for the health of our country or for consumers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

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

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume while I am waiting for an additional speaker. I want to hold up this board. This is an example that the FDA gave to businesses on how they could easily--we see all kinds of signs like this. Sometimes it is the price at the end of the item, and, in this case, it would be the calories. So it talks about a slice of pizza. Now, I am feeling kind of chunky today, and I go into the pizza parlor, and it says that for cheese pizza, for th original, it is about 200 to 240 calories; for the thin and crispy, 150 to 190 calories; and for pan--now, we love our pan pizza, our deep-dish pizza in Chicago, but that is 260 to 300 calories. So I am thinking: Yeah, I want pizza, but I think I am going to go with the thin and crispy, which is going to save me at least 110 calories. Now, what do I want on top? I am looking now at all the things, the meats and the veggies that can go on top, and each one of them has calories per slice listed there. Simple. I am a pretty good--you know, I can do math pretty well, and I can also compare. Do I want something that is up to 50 calories or something that is 20 calories? And I can look at this sign and make a decision for myself. This is not too cumbersome. This is something that could easily be displayed. I go to a lot of restaurants that already are in compliance and have the calories, and if I am like between the pasta and the salmon--and, again, I want to make that decision. It is good for me to know what is the real difference in calories. I want to say, I started out as an activist in the grocery store. I was a very, very young housewife many years ago, 1970, when a small group of women got together. We called ourselves National Consumers United because we wanted to know how old our food was in the grocery store. Everything was code dated. You couldn't tell how old the food was, and we were actually told that if we didn't like it, we could shop somewhere else. Well, we started cracking the codes like detectives, pushing the stock boys--and they were all boys--against the shelf, and they were telling us how they put the old stuff in front and the new stuff in the back. Finally, we were able to get one of our retailers to say: Come to Jewel; our food has freshness dates. And people loved it. And it turned out that, even over the initial opposition from the retailers, it was good for them, because people appreciated that and went to their stores. Now, those dates on food are ubiquitous. Customers like it, retailers like it, it is better, and this would be yet another thing that we could do. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to--you know, your friends at Jimmy John's are not going to go to jail. In fact, just this past November, in new supplemental draft guidance, FDA explained that the agency, ``does not intend to penalize or recommend the use of criminal penalties for minor violations.'' The FDA went on to explain that minor violations would include inadvertently missing a calorie declaration for a standard menu item on the buffet; minor discrepancies in the type, size, color, contrast of calorie declarations; minimal variations or inadvertent error that would only minimally impact the calorie declaration, such as adding extra slices of pepperoni or an extra dollop of ketchup. This is just not going to happen. Let me just say, in closing, the law that Congress passed almost 8 years ago--so the calls for more time is just ridiculous--should be allowed to go into effect. It is long past due. This is about freedom, about freedom of consumers to make informed choices. I know my friends across the aisle talk about freedom all the time. This is about freedom to make choices that will help you. Empowering consumers to make informed decisions that benefit their health is exactly what the current law allows. H.R. 772 would undermine that important goal. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Scott and the Congressional Black Caucus for hosting the special order. The Janus case is critically important to public employees--many of whom are people of color--as well as to the millions of Americans who rely on the services these workers provide. This is a case originating in my state of Illinois, Janus v AFSCME Council 31, an outstanding union that fights relentlessly for working families. The case was originally brought by Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, who was found to have no legal standing to bring suit, and who then scrambled to find another plaintiff. Before becoming Governor, Rauner was chairman of a private equity firm, where he put profits ahead of working families' paychecks. As Governor, he has made it his number one priority to attack unions, including the wages, benefits and well-being of his hardworking AFSCME employees. Janus is about freedom--not the freedom of Mr. Janus to get the benefits of union representation as a free rider--but the freedom of workers to join together to bargain for a better deal for their families: better wages, better benefits and a better future.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate an important and longstanding part of the fabric of the 9th Congressional District of Illinois: Temple Beth Israel in suburban Skokie, north of Chicago. January 31, 2018 marks 100 years since the Temple's incorporation in the State of Illinois, and it is considered its official birthday. Temple Beth Israel was the first Reform congregation in the Albany Park neighborhood of Chicago; and while its location may have changed over the last century, it has remained a stable presence in the lives of its congregants. For 100 years, Temple Beth Israel has allowed individuals and families to come together and express their Judaism-- providing comfort in dire times, a place to celebrate in happier times, and an opportunity to reflect and pray. This congregation has seen success because of the diligent work of its rabbis and staff over the years. Three different rabbis have spent more than 30 years apiece at this congregation, and each has left their mark on this institution. Rabbi Michael A. Weinberg has served as the Temple's beloved rabbi since 1987 and is a past president of the Chicago Association of Reform Rabbis, in addition to serving in other roles of distinction. Rabbi Weinberg was preceded by Rabbi Ernest M. Lorge, who served from 1947 through 1984. Rabbi Lorge worked hard to expand the congregation, was very involved in the issues of the day, and met with President John F. Kennedy at the White House to discuss civil rights issues. Rabbi Felix S. Mendelsohn served as the first full time Rabbi for Temple Beth Israel. He began his service in 1919 and is credited with founding both the Temple Center, a Jewish social center for young adults, and National Jewish Book Week--today known as Jewish Book Month. Today, the Temple Beth Israel congregation numbers approximately 400 families, and remains a vibrant part of the 9th Congressional District's diverse community. I offer my sincere congratulations to Rabbi Weinberg, the congregation's past and present staff and the many congregants who are celebrating this important milestone. I wish them all the best in the years ahead and hope for another century of good work ahead for Temple Beth Israel.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Mr. Scott and the Congressional Black Caucus for this Special Order. The Janus case is critically important to public employees, but, more importantly, to all the people who rely on public services that they provide. This is an Illinois case--it is my State--Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, a relentless fighter for American workers. Before becoming Governor, Bruce Rauner was chairman of a private equity firm where he put profits ahead of working families. As Governor, he was the one who filed this suit. We need to make sure that we protect workers all over this country. We need to win this case before the Supreme Court. Justice calls for winning for union members.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, well, it is day two of the Trump shutdown, the first government shutdown in history when one party has control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. But I believe that the issues at the heart of this debate actually have support from a majority of Americans and a majority in Congress. So I ask my Republican colleagues: Who are the 218 Republicans who would vote against funding community health centers as well as the Children Health Insurance Program? Who are the 218 Republicans who oppose addressing veterans' programs, workers' pensions, and the opioid epidemic? And, yes, who are the 218 Republicans who would vote against the young DACA recipients and the Dream Act? We don't lack votes. We lack willingness from President Trump and Republican leadership to negotiate. I am here. We are here ready to work. The Democrats want to come together with the Republicans on a bipartisan deal to end the Trump shutdown. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 4872, the End the Shutdown Act of 2018, a continuing resolution that would immediately reopen the government through Tuesday while negotiations continue on a budget agreement that adheres to parity and on other critical issues.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and mourn the loss of a precious friend and mentor, Paul Booth. Paul was a lifelong happy warrior for justice and a renowned progressive champion. For decades, he was a top leader in his union, AFSCME, fighting every day for working women and men. From his youth as a student leader until the very day he died, he fought for peace and equality and opportunity. Paul Booth made things happen. He was a strategist and, above all, an organizer. With his life partner, Heather Booth, Paul inspired and taught us to work smarter and be better. Paul Booth will be sorely missed by all those he touched, including my husband, Bob, and me. We were cherished friends for decades. Our hearts go out to Heather and his sons, Gene and Dan, and all those whose lives he inspired and that he touched. We are so sorry. We are heartbroken.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4712, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Of course, if a baby is born alive, everything must be done to protect that life. No one disagrees with that. Perhaps more importantly, it is already the law. To suggest otherwise is just wrong. So don't be fooled. This bill is yet another effort to erode women's rights to obtain safe, legal abortions and a cynical attempt to appease those who have come to D.C. to advocate for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. H.R. 4712 would insert the opinions of politicians into medical practice and the individual rights of women to make their own decisions. This is not what women want, what doctors were trained to do, and I personally find offensive the fact that there is a suggestion that Democrats are not for saving the lives of born children. Of course, we are. We all are. This is not a necessary piece of legislation. It is already on the books.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kris Sadur, who is retiring after serving for 10 years as a remarkable Constituent Advocate/Outreach Coordinator in my Chicago district office. Kris' inspiring career included assisting and supporting senior citizens, health care consumers, the disability community, educators, students, artists, women's rights advocates, and ALL the constituents of the 9th Congressional District. Kris has helped thousands upon thousands of Illinois 9th Congressional District residents throughout her ten years. She is an expert on issues affecting the senior citizen and disability community, including Medicare, Medicare Part D, Social Security, health care, senior housing, nursing homes, and postal issues. Kris has earned a reputation as a go-to person who can solve problems, cut through red tape, and get things done for constituents. Her expertise in Social Security and Medicare have been invaluable to residents of the 9th Congressional District and to me and my office. Kris is a fighter. I appreciated hearing her on the phone with government agencies, because she did not take no for an answer. She made sure that constituents were getting everything they needed and deserved. Sometimes she was told that nothing could be done to fix a problem, but somehow she would find a way. I call her a miracle worker. Recently she heard from a constituent who Social Security had determined was dead. This constituent and her family had been trying to rectify this mistake for weeks but were not successful. Kris was able to get Social Security to recognize that this constituent was alive and well and her benefits were immediately reinstated. Whenever a problem was brought to her attention, Kris rolled up her sleeves and went to work. She learned that the Medicare website video was not useable for the deaf community and American Sign Language (ASL) users, so she worked with the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) to get an ASL video on the website, thus getting critical information to hearing-impaired individuals across America. Kris also succeeded in making the local office that administers Medicaid more user-friendly. Remarkably, Kris has returned or saved constituents more than $6 million since she started working for me. She has been able to rectify errors in benefits and payments made by the Social Security Administration, Medicare and Medicaid, has gotten premiums reduced that were increased erroneously, corrected hospital billing errors, and helped constituents determine which Medicare Part D plan would be the least expensive with the most comprehensive coverage for their prescription needs. Kris recognized that often seniors couldn't make it into one of our district offices and so she went to them--she established several neighborhood office hour locations across the district where she could meet with constituents in the community, including at the Frisbie Senior Center in Des Plaines, the Park Ridge Senior Center, and Niles Township and New Trier Township offices. Kris was often invited to make presentations and speak with local organizations about Medicare, Medicare Part D, Social Security and legislation and policies affecting seniors. She spoke regularly to community groups and advocacy organizations, and at senior centers, nursing homes, and senior housing facilities. She has a knack for clearly explaining how complicated federal programs work and a genuine warmth that she communicates to her listeners. She was always in high demand as a speaker and presenter. Kris has a strong artistic background and she organized and ran the annual Artistic Discovery program in our district, an art competition for high school students in which the winner travels to Washington D.C. to see their art hung in the tunnel between the House buildings and the Capitol. Kris made this a very special competition and event, and she included all special education schools in the district. That led to some very powerful experiences for students in those schools, many of whom had never participated in such an event or had their work recognized. One special education school student had a life-changing experience by participating in this program, all because of Kris. Prior to working in my office, Kris worked at Age Options, the Area Agency on Aging for Suburban Cook County, where she was an outreach specialist. She was also President and Board Member at Niles Township Department of Special Education, President and Board Member at Temple Judea Mizpah in Skokie and President and Board Member at the Lincolnwood Board of Education in Lincolnwood. Kris also worked at National Able as a Job Development Supervisor and was a Women's Advocate and Budget Analyst at the Illinois House of Representatives. It is not easy to say goodbye to someone who has been such an essential part of our office team, a leader and role model, an inspiration and a treasured friend. Kris will be able to spend more time with her family, including her husband Al and children Craig and Jill. My office and I, and the residents of the 9th Congressional District, will miss her dearly and wish her every happiness in her retirement. We look forward to continuing our friendships long into the future.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I respect and support Tribal sovereignty. I also support workers' rights to unionize and collective bargaining to improve their workplace and the lives of their families. Those rights must be balanced, but they are not in this bill. Union members have a collective voice to fight for higher wages, better benefits, safer workplaces, fewer injuries, fewer deaths, lower rates of gender-based violence. After Unite Here, a union, found that 58 percent of hotel workers and 77 percent of casino workers in the Chicagoland, where I am from, had been sexually harassed, they won a contract that includes panic buttons to protect workers. Labor rights are fundamental, but under this bill, workers at Tribally-owned businesses, casinos and hotels, construction, and other industries would lose those rights. Remember, three out of four workers employed in Tribal casinos are not Tribal members. Those workers could end up with no way to bargain for fair wages, appeal unfair disciplinary action, or act against sexual harassment. Looking at a similar bill in the last Congress, the International Labour Organization stated: ``It would appear likely that an exclusion of certain workers from the National Labor Relations Act and its mechanisms would give rise to a failure to ensure to these workers their fundamental freedom of association rights absent any assurances that there were Tribal labor laws that provide the same rights to all workers.'' Mr. Speaker, there is no such requirement in this bill. Protect workers. Reject this unfair and unbalanced bill. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the opinion from the International Labour Office. International Labour Office, Geneve 22. Mr. R.L. Trumka, President, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Trumka: I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 22 October 2015 requesting an informal opinion and guidance from the International Labour Organization in respect of a Bill being considered by the United States Congress. In particular, you have raised concerns about the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act (H.R. 511) which you state would deny protection under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of a large number of workers employed by tribal-owned and tribal- operated enterprises located on tribal territory and ask for the informal opinion of the Office as to whether such an exclusion of workers employed on tribal lands would be in conformity with the principles of freedom of Association which are at the core of the ILO Constitution and the ILO's Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. In conformity with the regular procedure concerning requests for an informal opinion from the International Labour Office in respect of draft legislation and its possible impact on international labour standards and principles, the views set out below should in no way be considered as prejudging any comments or observations that might be made by the ILO supervisory bodies within the framework of their examination of the application of ratified international labour standards or principles on freedom of association. Your links to committee reports of the congressional majority and minority and other background information have enabled the Office to consider the views of the parties both for and against the proposed amendment and they all appear to confirm recognition of the United States' obligation to uphold freedom of association and collective bargaining. While the proponents of the Bill assert that this can be achieved through the labour relations' regimes autonomously determined by the tribal nations, the opponents--and you yourself in your request--maintain that excluding tribal lands from the NLRA will in effect result in a loss (or at the very least inadequate protection) of their trade union rights. Not only do you refer to tribal labour relations ordinances which in your view provide inadequate protections in this regard, but you also refer to instances where there are no tribal labour relations ordinances at all. While elements of indigenous peoples' sovereignty have been invoked by the proponents of this Bill, the central question revolves around the manner in which the United States Government can best assure throughout its territory the full application of the fundamental principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining. From an ILO perspective, while the variety of mechanisms for ensuring freedom of association and collective bargaining rights may differ depending on distinct sectoral considerations or devolution of labour competence, it is critical that the State (the national authority) takes ultimate responsibility for ensuring respect for freedom of association and collective bargaining rights throughout its territory. As you have indicated, the 2004 San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino decision assures possible recourse to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), an overarching mechanism aimed at ensuring the protection of freedom of association, while also maintaining deference to the sovereign interests of the tribal nations so as to avoid touching on exclusive rights of self-governance. Full abdication of review via an exclusion from the scope of the NLRA for all workers employed on tribal lands as described might make it very difficult for the United States Government to assure the fundamental trade union rights of workers. In cases like those mentioned where there are no tribal labour relations ordinances, undue restrictions on collective bargaining, excessive limitations on freedom of association rights or lack of protection from unfair labour practices, workers on tribal territories would be left without any remedy for violation of their fundamental freedom of association rights, short of a constitutional battle. Furthermore, the exclusion proposed, with no avenue for federal review or overarching mechanism for appeal should there be an alleged violation of freedom of association, would give rise to discrimination in relation to the protection of trade union rights which would affect both indigenous and non-indigenous workers simply on the basis of their workplace location. Given the concerns that you have raised, it would be critically important that, at the very least, a complete legal and comparative review be undertaken to support assurances that all rights, mechanisms and remedies for the full protection of internationally recognized freedom of association rights are available to all workers on all tribal lands. In the absence of such assurances, it would appear likely that an exclusion of certain workers from the NLRA and its mechanisms would give rise to a failure to ensure to these workers their fundamental freedom of association rights. In accordance with ILO procedure concerning requests for informal opinions on draft legislation, this communication will also be brought to the attention of the United States Government and the representative employers' organization, the US Council for International Business. Yours sincerely, Corinne Vargha, Director of the International Labour Standards Department.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, all of us are anxious to go home to our families and our celebrations, but more and more Americans are seeing every single day, particularly in the last couple days, just how messed up the values and priorities of the Republican majority really are. They saw the Republicans go off to the White House and high-fiving and cheering each other for a tax cut that provides 81 percent of its benefits to the wealthiest Americans and that blows about a $1.5- trillion hole in the budget. That means debt and deficit. Who is left with the coal in the stocking? We are looking at 9 million children and their parents who are sick, who have been worrying about how they are going to have the Children's Health Insurance Program. Yes, we extended it now until March. It expired in September, but we didn't have time for those children. We don't have time for the 800,000 young people who are serving this country right now as DACA recipients. We could pass the Dream Act today. Let's get our values straight. Let's do better than we are.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and also for her tremendous leadership. Let's talk a little bit about the winners in this bill. I think it is interesting to note that, if you are General Electric, since 1990 to 2017, you have contributed over $20 million to Republican campaigns. What you get back in tax relief from this legislation is almost $16 billion over the life of this bill. If you are Microsoft, you have contributed over $17 million, and you get back $27 billion from this tax bill. This is such a great investment for big corporations who have given money to Republican candidates over the years. But if you are not part of the country's wealthiest 1 percent, this GOP tax scam is a really bad deal for you. It is especially bad for America's senior citizens. This tax scam raises premiums for those 50 to 64 by 10 percent, an average of $1,400, and the deficit it creates will require, under the law, $25 billion in a Medicare tax cut next year. We have heard the Republicans say we are going to get that money back, but in this bill there is a $25 billion cut in Medicare next year. That is only the beginning. It gets worse. Republicans aren't even hiding the fact that they intend to use this deficit that they created of $1.5 trillion as justification for slashing Medicare and Medicaid. They have said it. They have admitted it. They are even talking about raising the age of Social Security eligibility in order to give these tax breaks to the rich. Seniors should not have to foot the bill for a tax scam that gives 83 percent of the benefits to the top 1 percent. American seniors deserve a better deal. So do 86 million families who would see a tax increase as a result of this scam. To my Republican colleagues, you really do have a second chance. Because the bill got messed up, there were mistakes, it was done so fast, done in secret, it is coming back to us today. So you have a second chance to do the right thing. Please take it. Vote ``no.''