Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I would say to my colleague, as the chairman of the subcommittee I serve on and that deals with auto safety, I know, for a very long time, he has certainly seen the legislation that I have offered in the past, and this is the first time that I have heard that argument. The idea of this legislation was to pair down the bill that I had introduced into the kinds of safety enhancements that the gentleman and many of the Republicans on the committee also had in their legislation. The goal is one thing: to make sure that we provide more safety, strengthen accountability, and that we share more information with consumers. The amendment addresses those issues. It has avoided, studiously, the more controversial parts of auto safety bills that maybe, someday, we can come back to, but the goal was to get a good start. I am disappointed that there is opposition to this amendment, but I still urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, in the wake of the GM and Takata recalls, it became apparent that major changes were needed to improve information sharing, enhance safety, and strengthen accountability measures. This amendment addresses some of those issues, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Before I explain the contents of this amendment, it is important to explain what is not in the amendment. There are no new civil penalties for companies that fail to adequately protect drivers and the public. There is no ``imminent hazard authority'' to enable NHTSA to get the most dangerous cars off the road as soon as possible. While I believe those changes are sorely needed, I knew that the Republican majority would oppose them. What is left are some of the more obvious reforms for auto safety, and there is no reasonable excuse to oppose the amendment. This amendment would improve the functionality of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Web site to enable better and more detailed searches, to standardize terms so that consistent problems can be identified faster, and to improve the early warning database so that consumers can determine whether a vehicle they drive or plan to drive has a history of dangerous incidents. My amendment would also increase the amount of information provided to consumers who are purchasing or leasing used vehicles, including specific vehicle damage history and recall repair history. It would include that information in the Used Car Buyers Guide, which already must be posted on each used vehicle that is offered for sale; and it would inform consumers about the Web site, which is where they can find more information about their specific vehicle history. The investigations into the GM and Takata failures were made more difficult by the fact that comprehensive safety records were not maintained by many manufacturers. This amendment would fix that by ensuring that those records are preserved for 20 years. Auto manufacturers are not currently required to remedy recalled vehicles if those cars were sold more than 10 years before the recall. That makes no sense, especially when the average car on the road is more than 11 years old. This amendment would require all defects to be remedied at no cost to the car owner no matter how long the car has been owned. With more than 30,000 deaths a year, we have a long way to go in reducing deaths and serious injuries on our roads. There are things we can and should do to enhance auto safety, and Congress has a long track record of doing just that. For example, a bill I sponsored, which was signed into law by President Bush, established a rulemaking to require technologies that would enable drivers to see behind their vehicles. By 2018, rear cameras will be standard for all cars. That rule will prevent more than 100 deaths and many more injuries each year. This amendment would require NHTSA to continue that progress by requiring research into technologies and then developing standards that could reduce injuries and deaths for rear seat passengers and pedestrians. Finally, this amendment eliminates the flawed system of regional recalls. Regional recalls limit remedies to specific States. This prevents vehicles which have traveled across the country from being recalled. Takata issued regional recalls for its airbags, but with high humidity being a factor in airbag explosions, it makes no sense that its regional recall missed, for example, Washington, D.C.--a swamp, with all due respect. While most of Takata's regional recalls were expanded nationally, not all of them were, and some drivers can't legally get their vehicles remedied free of charge. We can't allow this regional recall system to continue. Again, these are commonsense, safety-focused provisions that would enhance consumer information, vehicle safety, and accountability. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, my view is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We have had a good deal of success with the current rules, and to change the game plan right now, I think, is a disservice to consumers, to all the other stakeholders, including the auto manufacturers, the unions, the consumer groups, and everybody who has weighed in and bought in to these rules. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Mullin amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership. I understand that everyone has car dealerships in their districts and they are an important part of our economy, but this amendment serves one purpose and one purpose only: allowing car dealers and rental car companies to evade responsibility. Just like rental car companies, car dealerships rent and lease vehicles regularly. And just like rental car companies, car dealerships should not be renting or leasing cars that are subject to a safety recall without first repairing the defect. These are safety recalls on cars the auto manufacturers themselves have deemed necessary to repair. Can you imagine bringing your car to a dealer to get a deadly Takata airbag replaced and then being given a loaner car with the same deadly Takata airbag to drive while your car is being repaired? That is the situation that this amendment would allow. Of all those subjected to the Safe Rental Car Act, car dealerships are in the best position to fix these recalled cars quickly. Instead of this amendment, which weakens the Senate provision, the Rules Committee should have made in order the gentlewoman's amendment expanding the provision to ensure used cars are not sold until recalls are fixed. Whether or not renting cars is the company's primary business makes no business. A defective car is a defective car. Rental companies and auto dealers alike have a responsibility to their customers, and we have a responsibility to ensure that consumers' lives are not put at risk. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, Mr. Williams' amendment unreasonably limits the application of the Raechel and Jacqueline Houck Safe Rental Car Act that is included in the Senate amendments to H.R. 22. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), the woman who has really been a leader for safety in the car rental field.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, which would undermine the Obama administration's historic vehicle fuel economy and tailpipe emission standards. The EPA and the Department of Transportation rules provide huge benefits. They help consumers save money at the pump, reduce reliance on foreign oil, and reduce the carbon pollution that threatens our climate and our health. By 2025, these rules are expected to save American families $1.7 trillion on fuel costs, cut greenhouse gas emissions by 6 billion metric tons, and reduce America's dependance on oil by more than 2 million barrels per day. These are rules that have been an overwhelming success due in large part to the high level of coordination and participation of multiple stakeholder groups in their development. We are talking about groups like automobile manufacturers, State and local governments, the United Auto Workers, consumer groups, environmental organizations, and the public. In short, these rules are good for American consumers, manufacturers, and the environment. The Mullin amendment would undermine the success of existing and future car rules by requiring EPA to extend any ``preference or incentive'' provided to electric vehicles to natural gas vehicles as well. The amendment also requires EPA to go back and make retroactive changes to the tailpipe rules already on the books. Some of these rules were finalized 3 years ago, and reopening these carefully coordinated negotiations makes no sense. The Mullin amendment would effectively say that natural gas vehicles and electric vehicles are exactly the same, but they are fundamentally different in terms of their tailpipe emissions and the miles per gallon they get on the road. Natural gas vehicles already receive numerous incentives under the tailpipe and fuel economy rules, and natural gas vehicles are an established and functioning technology, so there is little need to incentivize them further for reasons of technological innovation. This is in contrast with electric vehicles for whom many of the current incentives are designed. The amendment is also not justified from a climate perspective. Electric vehicles have the potential to be game changers, especially with low greenhouse gas electricity. On the other hand, natural gas vehicles continue to depend on a fossil fuel with no such game-changing potential. Also, because natural gas is already a very viable fuel for heavy-duty vehicles, additional incentives would essentially be bonuses for using a fuel that would have been used anyway. So this would dilute the heavy-duty vehicle GHG program. The Mullin amendment would give windfall incentives to automobile manufacturers that produce natural gas vehicles, creating a loophole that will allow them to produce other dirty and less efficient vehicles and still meet their tailpipe emissions and fuel economy requirements. This sets a dangerous precedent that subverts essential rules that were developed through an open public rulemaking process, including all stakeholders, and undermines critical U.S. energy conservation policies. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, while I am not going to oppose the amendment, I do have some questions about it. For this reason, it seems to me that this amendment is not likely to be all that effective in getting defective parts off the market: It only requires parts suppliers and automakers to supply information when a recall is first ordered by the Secretary of Transportation. It does not apply in the most common recall scenario when a manufacturer provides notice of a recall. So NHTSA is going to be asked to expend valuable resources to set up a new system for auto part information, and that system, it seems to me, should at least be effective in getting defective parts off the market and off the roads in all circumstances of recalls. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman for organizing this evening. Many members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus I hope will be coming down and joining us this evening for a tribute to this Working Families Day of Action, the Working Families Agenda. Mrs. Watson Coleman listed some of the bills that we have on that agenda. The problems that working families are facing are not intractable. We know that many working women and men are struggling today, but these problems are not unsurmountable. In fact, they could be solved relatively easily if the Republican majority would work with us to pass legislation that would bring U.S. labor policies in line with the rest of the industrialized world. We have the legislation. We have the public support. We just need action. One solution, which my colleague, Mr. Ellison, mentioned is to allow workers to join unions. We know that union members earn more and have better benefits. A study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that unionized women earn, on average, $2.50 more per hour, are 36 percent more likely to have an employ-sponsored benefit plan and 18 percent more likely to have paid sick leave. Last week I visited with some O'Hare airport workers who came to Washington, baggage handlers, passenger transporters--the people who push the wheelchairs--and others. They are hired by contractors like Prospect Company. Now, they are wearing uniforms, and it looks to me like they are hired by either the airline or the airport. But, no, they are hired by a private contractor. They don't have paid sick leave or health insurance. One woman in the group earned only $8.25 an hour after 14 years on the job. One of their colleagues suffered a miscarriage after her employer refused to give her light duty. The next time she became pregnant, they offered her light duty, but only if she agreed to work only one afternoon a week. Unionized workers have a different experience. One of the workers in the group was a cabin cleaner hired by Skyline, a union company. He earned fair wages, a pension, and benefits. We know that these problems can be solved. But I want to talk a little bit about how unstable work schedules contribute to the chaotic life of many workers by telling you about Tanya in a letter I received. My name is Tanya and I work in an assembly line in a frigid 36-degree warehouse chopping lettuce and other items to create grab'n'go foods destined for display cases in Starbucks, Costco, and Walmart. I never know much in advance which days I will work, which hours, or even how long my shift will last. Sometimes I may be scheduled for an 8-hour shift, but get only 4 hours of work because my line's order is completed early. Other times I am at work and on my feet for 12 hours. The unpredictability of my schedule makes it impossible for me to go back to school, which I desperately want to do, because I can't commit to any class schedule. I can't even plan a budget for rent, food or transportation because I have no idea how much money I will make in any given month. It is terrible when I finish the order early and am sent home without working my full shift. It is even worse when I punch out and hear my supervisor say, ``We don't need you tomorrow.'' My heart sinks. It is the last thing I want to hear. I only make $9.25 an hour and sometimes I get only 25 hours a week. That isn't even enough to pay my rent. These are stories that all of us in this Congress need to hear, to digest, to understand what the life of people in our districts is like, and we need to offer solutions that can improve their lives. They work hard. They are not asking for much. They want good schedules. They want fair wages. They want some benefits. And, yes, even a little retirement security would be good. We could do that. We are the richest country in the world at the richest moment in history.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 150th Anniversary of the American Sokol Organization. As one of the first organized gymnastics and fitness organizations in the United States, I would like to congratulate the American Sokol Organization on this important milestone and applaud them for its continued efforts to provide fitness, educational, and cultural programs to their communities. The American Sokol Organization will celebrate this anniversary on November 14, 2015 at the Women's Athletic Club of Chicago, and as a Co-Chair of the Czech Caucus, I am pleased to see them mark such an important date. The anniversary celebration taking place in Chicago will feature two important guests. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Petr Gandalovic, Ambassador of the Czech Republic to the United States, and Kristyna Pellouchoud Driehaus, KMD Foundation, American Friends of the Czech Republic and Chicago Czech Center for taking part in this magnificent celebration as Honorary Co-Chairs. On March 19, 2015, I attended a wreath laying ceremony marking the 25th Anniversary of Vaclav Havel's speech to a joint session of Congress and dedicating his bust's new and permanent location in Freedom Foyer. This event was attended by leaders of Congress, and Czech Ambassador to the United States, Petr Gandalovic. The first American Sokol unit was founded by Czech and Slovak immigrants, Karel Prochazka, Jaroslav Vostrovsky, and E.B. Erben, in Saint Louis, Missouri in 1865. At that time, large numbers of immigrants were flocking to the United States and these founders created community centers for their children to learn and engage in fitness activities--these centers were the first American Sokols. During the first 50 years of the organization, many American Sokols were formed throughout the United States, and all of these units were incorporated into the American Sokol Organization on January 1, 1917. Today, well into its second century in service, American Sokol remains an organization dedicated to the physical, mental, and cultural enrichment of its members. American Sokol has been shaping the lives of Olympians, diplomats, artists, athletes, and most importantly, the families in the communities in which we serve. Sokol is the Czechoslovak word for falcon, and it is an appropriate symbol since the falcon is a bird that has great love for freedom, as well as strength, courage and agility. The Sokol philosophy strives for physical fitness for their members, believing that to maintain a free nation, its people must be physically and morally strong. American Sokol members represent a wide age range. Members range from preschool children to retired adults. This diversity allows older members to pass on the benefit of their wisdom and experience to the young people in a personal way. In combining Czechoslovak culture, the American heritage, and American Sokol ideals, this organization has contributed greatly to the welfare of the United States. Many American Sokol members have served their country with distinction, in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam conflict, and beyond. I am proud to join with American Sokol members in the 9th Congressional District of Illinois, which I am honored to represent, and members of American Sokol Organization in the City of Chicago and all over the United States, as they celebrate their 150 years of excellence, achievement, and contributions to the greatness of the United States.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the creation of a select committee to investigate Planned Parenthood. Let's be clear: this is just another political witch hunt, this time targeting women, their trusted organization, and women's health. Now, let's talk about the Republican vision for women of America. Just look at their record. First, they passed a budget that completely eliminated title X--that is contraception--the only Federal grant program dedicated to family planning, and slashed funding by 80 percent for the teen pregnancy initiative by over 80 percent. Then we find that last week the Republicans proved that this witch hunt is not just aimed at Planned Parenthood. They passed a bill that threatened funding for every doctor, clinic, and hospital that dares to participate in abortion services. They also want to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which requires insurance companies to cover maternity care. They don't want to expand Medicaid, which currently covers one out of every three births and more than 43 million children. In fact, they want to turn Medicaid into a block grant program. And Republicans have proposed huge cuts to education. I want to say to my Republican friends: Be careful what you wish for. The women of America are watching.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, a complete falsehood was just stated. Planned Parenthood does not sell any body parts for profit. That is a fact. So here we go again: Republicans threatening to shut down the government in order to deny women access to health care. When the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, the first thing they did was nearly shut down the government over funding for Planned Parenthood, and 4 years later, Republicans are once again seriously considering shutting down the government over the exact same thing. This time, they have manufactured a witch hunt based on heavily edited videos that were clearly intended to mislead the public and the Congress. They have wasted time and resources on futile investigations that have produced absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of Planned Parenthood. In contrast, there is growing evidence that The Center for Medical Progress broke several laws. I recently sent a letter to the Department of Justice and to the California Attorney General, asking them to investigate the practices of this organization. My letter raises concerns about fake identification that was used to gain access to Planned Parenthood facilities, fraudulent tax documents that were filed to create a fake corporate entity, and violations of California's Invasion of Privacy Act. In response, the California Attorney General has initiated an investigation. There are also several legal actions pending against The Center for Medical Progress. Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful bill for women's health. Here we go again--Republicans threatening to shut down the government to deny women access to health care. When the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, the first thing they did was nearly shut down the government over funding for Planned Parenthood. Four years later, Republicans are once again seriously considering shutting down the government over the exact same thing. This time, they've manufactured a witch hunt based on heavily edited videos that were clearly intended to misled the public and Congress. They've wasted time and resources on futile investigations that have produced absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of Planned Parenthood. In contrast, there is growing evidence that the Center for Medical Progress broke several laws. I recently sent a letter to the Department of Justice and the California Attorney General asking them to investigate the potentially illegal practices of this organization. My letter raises concerns about fake identification that was used to gain access to Planned Parenthood facilities, fraudulent tax documents that were filed to create a fake corporate entity, and violations of California's Invasion of Privacy Act. In response, the California AG has initiated an investigation. There are also several legal actions pending against the Center for Medical Progress. But we all know that Republicans are not really interested in the truth here. This entire charade is a thinly veiled attempt to erode a woman's ability to make decisions about her own body. For proof, look no further than their budget proposal. Their budget eliminated Title X, the only federal grant program dedicated to providing women with family planning services, and cuts the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program by over 80 percent--programs that would reduce the need for abortion. Republicans have made it clear that women are fair game. They can't even pass a continuing resolution without interfering in the personal lives of American women. Republicans can't overturn Roe v. Wade so they try every other way possible to erode this fundamental right. They try to cut off funding to the clinics that provide abortions, they try to criminalize doctors who perform abortions, and they restrict access for millions of women every year through the Hyde Amendment. Enough is enough. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this terrible bill and to stop interfering in the personal lives of American women.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, the previous speaker said something completely false. Planned Parenthood does not sell fetal tissue.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Madam Speaker, I just want to say that there is the implication in the testimony and in the speeches that are made here that the other side of the aisle is somehow more concerned about the life of a child born alive, that somehow Democrats just don't care about that, and I just want to tell you I resent that so very, very much. We unanimously voted to protect that life. And if, in fact, a baby is born into this world and can survive and is alive, it is considered homicide to kill that baby. There are laws. There are laws that would protect the life of an infant, a real child that is born that can sustain life. I just want to tell you that somehow making this division about people who really care about a living person that is born is just false. And I think I am speaking for all people, for all Democrats and, clearly, for all Republicans, that we need to make sure that we protect that life. But I believe that we have every law in place. What this bill does is go further and create fear among physicians, healers, people who are educated and committed to health and life, and put fear into them that if they don't provide for the exact procedures that you are talking about, that they could spend 5 years in jail for providing the healthcare services that a woman needs. That is, I believe, part of this ongoing effort to say that we should end the full range of health services that are available to women. This is a further attack on women's health. We all agree on what the outcome should be, and let's not get into this ongoing fight against women's health.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. In 2002, the President of the United States and this Congress voted to address the perceived threat of a mushroom cloud coming from Iraq by going to war, a war that unleashed massive violence in the Mideast and threatens the world even today. The Obama administration, faced with the actual threat of a nuclear weaponized Iran, has chosen, instead, the path of diplomacy, the path of peace, and I am proud to support this historic agreement. As the President said: ``This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change--change that makes our country, and the world, safer and more secure.'' Voices inside and outside the Congress are calling for a rejection of this historic agreement, among them the same neocons who stampeded the United States into war with Iraq. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Iran is now 2 to 3 months from being able to produce a nuclear weapon, and yet the critics have offered no credible alternative to a deal that blocks all the paths to a nuclear weapon. Now, we know this deal is not perfect. Iran is a bad actor. The President and all of us would have much preferred a deal that prohibits Iran from enriching any uranium forever and maintains sanctions until Iran changes its behavior and becomes a responsible member of the world community. But that deal didn't happen--because it never could have happened. This deal greatly improves the outlook for peace by blocking all of Iran's paths to a nuclear weapon, and this is carefully spelled out in the agreement itself, often in very technical language: Iran's stockpiles of rich uranium will be reduced from enough for 10 bombs to less than 1; the number of Iran's installed centrifuges is reduced by over two-thirds; and far from trusting Iran, the deal demands the most robust, intrusive inspections regime ever in an international agreement. We heard yesterday, many of us, from the ambassadors from five of our allies in the P5+1. These ambassadors said if the United States walks away, the deal collapses. Iran would be without any constraints to move ahead with its nuclear weapons program. All paths would be open. There would be no inspections whatsoever, no insight into Iran's activities. The ability of the United States to build meaningful international coalitions would be eroded for the foreseeable future. I view this upcoming vote on Iran as one of the most important of my career, and, my colleagues, I would say that is true for everyone. It is one of the most important of my life. For me, the choice is clear: diplomacy over war. Colleagues, let's remember, nothing is off the table. But why wouldn't we choose peace and give peace a chance?

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on July 14, the Older Americans Act turned 50 years old. My constituent Patricia, from Chicago, is one of millions who rely on the Older Americans Act. And here is what she wrote to me: ``I suffer from three chronic illnesses. Meals on Wheels allows me to have nutritious meals despite a difficult medicine regime . . . while not as active as I used to be it allows me dignity in these difficult days . . . it allows me to volunteer both through my church and the park district and give back to the community the gifts and knowledge accumulated through my lifetime . . . I teach crochet in the park district and to youngsters as well as tutor science and math in my church . . . enriching the lives of many . . . it's what I can do and these programs help me do it. . . .'' Let's celebrate the Older Americans Act by passing a strong reauthorization bill for millions of people like Patricia.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I support workers and the important transportation and infrastructure jobs they do. They deserve the certainty and support that a long-term, well-funded highway funding bill would provide. H.R. 3038 is not that bill. Our infrastructure is rated a D+ by the American Society of Civil Engineers. A transportation system that was once the envy of the world has fallen into disrepair. We've passed dozens of short-term extensions over the past decade, and they haven't done the trick. We know where this bill will leave us: infrastructure projects won't be planned beyond December, long-overdue projects will hang in limbo, and workers will be left wondering if they'll spend the holidays unemployed. Every business owner, worker, and state and local official I have spoken with has asked for the same thing: a long-term, well-funded bill. In order to do that, we need to make a commitment to filling the funding gap from the gas tax--which has not been increased in more than two decades. I support gradually raising the gas tax to pay for our infrastructure priorities. I also joined 184 of my Democratic colleagues in supporting a motion that would have paid for a long-term, well-funded highway bill by preventing corporate tax inversions--the process of moving corporate headquarters overseas. Just one Republican supported that proposal. Doing either of those things would sustain the vital infrastructure investments we need. Those who suggest we can't afford a good highway bill are wrong. We are the richest country in the world at the richest time in our history. Funding our roads and bridges is a priority. We can afford it, and the American people demand that we do. What we cannot do is continue the path of unpredictability and short- term planning that results from these stopgap measures for our highways, bridges, and other infrastructure projects. That is why I voted against H.R. 3038. This is the greatest country in the world, and there is nothing we cannot do. It's time to act accordingly by advancing a long-term, well- funded transportation bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and thank my constituent Aphrodite Loutas, who is retiring after a distinguished 28- year career of public service. Ms. Loutas has been District 14 Chief of Staff for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) since her appointment in 2009 and is currently the Acting District Director. Ms. Loutas started her federal government service with Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) in 1987 as a Supervisory Legalization Officer for the Legalization Program. She became an Immigration Examiner in 1990, and was a supervisor in Citizenship from 1991 through 1997. In 1997 she served as Central Regional Coordinator for the Headquarters Office of Naturalization Operations. Ms. Loutas was then appointed as Special Assistant to the District Director in the Chicago district in 1999 and served in that capacity until 2005. From 2005 to 2009, she was the Assistant Director for Mission Support. Ms. Loutas was honored in 2011 with the USCIS Director's Heritage Award for her outstanding service. My staff and I have had the pleasure of working closely with Ms. Loutas since 1999. She is compassionate, efficient, effective, and an exemplary public servant. She will be greatly missed.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I am proud to join Congresswoman Lee and Congresswoman Clarke in offering this amendment. Our amendment would strike the policy riders that were added to the 21st Century Cures Act after it passed unanimously the Energy and Commerce Committee, 51-0. Most notably, our amendment would remove the unnecessary addition of the Hyde amendment. The Hyde amendment is a discriminatory policy that denies millions of women the full range of healthcare choices, and it has no business being included in this legislation. It is time for us to stop using these bills as a way to discriminate against women. Going forward, as far as I am concerned, I will not support any bill that adds such language. It is time for us to stop taking away health services from low-income women, from women serving in the military, from Federal employees, and from every woman who relies on the Federal Government for her health insurance. All women, regardless of their incomes and what insurance they have, deserve to make their own health choices. This harmful provision is unrelated to the goals of this otherwise bipartisan landmark legislation, and I ask that Members vote in favor of our amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, so I have heard that the Republicans have pulled their Interior Appropriations bill from the floor, and I sure hope it is because they have reconsidered their support for flying the Confederate battle flag, overturning an earlier decision of this very body by unanimous voice vote to take it down. Last night, unbelievably, unforgivably, House Republicans acted to uphold the Confederate battle flag at the very moment that South Carolina was voting to take it down. House Republicans surreptitiously rushed to have National Park Service continue to sell this symbol of hate and to keep the Confederate flag flying on Federal lands. Even worse, House Republicans tried to cloak this shady move by wrapping it in language about our American flag and the MIA-POW flag-- how dare they. Sears, Amazon, and many other retailers have stopped selling that symbol of hate, and that is what a Republican State Representative in South Carolina tearfully called it. It is astonishing that the Republicans are so out of touch. We cannot allow this shameful decision to hold. Take down the flag.