Floor Statements

I want to thank the ranking member from the full committee, my friend from California (Mr. Waxman), for yielding this time.

Madam Chair, I'm not opposed to drilling in Alaska and I'm not opposed to streamlining the permitting process in a sensible and thoughtful manner, but I do object to cutting out input and participation from the very communities that would be most affected by this process or preempting States' authority in order to expedite the permitting process for one single company.

Unfortunately, many of the less affluent communities who are ultimately being adversely affected by this permitting process do not have the resources of the oil industry to lobby Congress on their own behalf, and so it's up to us, those Members who represent those same people, to come to this floor to represent them.

While this bill will benefit Shell, the repercussions and consequences, both intended and unintended, will have a much greater impact on many stakeholders.

If the majority had been willing to work with our side on this bill, as we offered on many occasions we wanted to--we begged, we pleaded, we almost crawled to try to get bipartisan participation on this bill--if they had been willing to work together, we could have crafted a bipartisan piece of legislation that could move through the House and the Senate and ultimately become law.

However, this bill does not take into account some of the very real concerns that the minority has outlined to the majority on several occasions.

In fact, yesterday, the White House issued a statement opposing this bill because ``H.R. 2021 would curtail the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act to help ensure that domestic oil production on the Outer Continental Shelf proceeds safely, responsibly, and with opportunities for efficient stakeholder input. H.R. 2021 would limit existing EPA authority to protect human health and the environment. H.R. 2021 would increase Federal court litigation and deprive citizens of an important avenue for challenging government action that affects local public health.''

Madam Chair, this bill is certainly not about creating jobs, and it's certainly not about lowering gasoline prices. It is a giveaway--a blatant giveaway, an unadulterated giveaway--to the oil industry that will increase pollution along our coasts. In fact, as the administration has pointed out, 70 percent of the offshore leases that oil companies currently possess are not even at this very moment in production. Again, 70 percent of the offshore leases that oil companies own are not now in production, and 29 million acres of onshore permits, as we speak, aren't being developed. So it is unnecessary for Congress to intervene by sacrificing public participation and air quality protections for the sake of expediency on behalf of Shell, as this bill does.

Madam Chair, I hope--I sincerely hope--that we can find bipartisan support for the amendments that will be offered today, including my own, which will simply allow the EPA administrator to provide additional 30-day extensions if the same administrator determines that such time is necessary to

provide adequate time for public participation and sufficient involvement by affected States.

Madam Chair, I want to, first of all, say that this bill will not create jobs. This bill is not meant to create jobs. If the drilling is to create jobs, those jobs would be created regardless of whether this bill passes or not.

This bill's supporters also claim that it will lower gasoline prices, that it will reduce the budget deficit, and that it will cut unemployment. Well, they might as well have said that it would cure the common cold as well.

This bill is a solution in search of a problem.

This bill was written by Shell, for Shell, to address its frustrations with the permitting process in Alaska, a frustration that it was responsible for, Shell, itself. Ironically, the EPA has said on many occasions that it is working overtime to finalize Shell's permits by the end of this summer.

This bill won't get a drop of oil to American markets for American consumers one millisecond faster.

Shell told the Energy and Commerce Committee they won't be able to produce oil from its Arctic operations for at least 10 years, at least another decade. Even if this bill increased the rate of offshore production, new drilling is unlikely to affect world oil prices.

In 2009 the Energy Information Administration looked at the difference between allowing full offshore drilling and restricting offshore drilling. The EIA found that there would be no impact on gasoline prices from full drilling in 2020, and only a slight impact by 2030, with gas prices falling by a mere 3 cents a gallon.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today would strengthen this bill by ensuring that we maintain an opportunity for State and community input even as we seek to streamline the permitting process, as this bill attempts to do.

My amendment would simply allow the EPA administrator to provide additional 30-day extensions if the administrator determines that such time is necessary to provide adequate time for public participation and sufficient involvement by affected States. Mr. Chairman, input by those most affected by drilling is a vital and necessary part of the permitting process.

There was a time not too long ago when my Republican colleagues valued local participation and States' rights; and now that they are in the majority, they are attempting to strip away the power of States and the power of local communities to even participate in the decisions that will affect them the most.

As Representative of the people, I do not believe that it makes sense for us to legislate away the ability of our citizens to comment on drilling decisions that will impact their health, impact their livelihoods, impact their well-being. I also don't think that our constituents will buy into the argument put forth by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we must make it easier for all companies to drill and also take away the public's ability to comment, even while they say this is for the public's own benefit. It's ludicrous.

This bill's supporters have said that this is a narrow bill designed to address problems Shell Oil Company has faced in obtaining a Clean Air Act permit for exploratory drilling off the coast of Alaska; but in fact, this legislation will impact every State on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The States of California and Delaware testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee that they have grave concerns about the impact of this bill on their ability to protect public health and welfare from air pollution.

I truly believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is imperative that the States and the local communities that will be most affected participate in the process of awarding permits, and this amendment would ensure that adequate time is given for that purpose. I don't believe that we should ever sacrifice the interests of the American public in order to expedite the interests of oil companies, so I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in supporting my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let us not be bamboozled by this argument that my friend on the other side is trying to perpetuate on the American people. There is one problem with this bill--well, there are actually two problems with this bill.

One problem is that it gives the EPA and State permitting authorities just 6 months, 6 lousy months, to finalize an air permit for offshore exploratory drilling, which is not enough time to perform an adequate technical review while allowing for adequate public participation.

Number two, it preempts State authority. It preempts the right of the State of California, the State of Delaware, and other States with designated authority to impose more stringent emission controls on vessels servicing an offshore drilling operation.

Mr. Chair, this amendment attempts to cure a very serious problem with this bill.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to rise today to mark the 50th Anniversary of the founding of the Village of Orland Hills, Illinois. Orland Hills is nestled in the southwest corner of Cook County in the 1st Congressional District. Its growth speaks to the dynamic and dedicated leaders who have built Orland Hills with an eye towards the connectedness that is the true definition of community. At a time when social networking via technology has increasingly replaced face to face interaction, the real life network that exists among the residents of Orland Hills should be seen as a model for us all.

Originally founded on June 30, 1961 as the Village of Westhaven, residents held their first Village Board Meeting on August 3, 1961. A president, Raymond Pecor, was elected. Shortly afterwards, the village annexed 10 acres at the southeast corner of 167th Street and 94th Avenue. A Zoning Commission was formed and a Planning Commission was appointed to prepare a zoning ordinance and a zoning district map. Over the years, as the village's population continued to grow, annexations of adjacent land took Westhaven south to 171st Street. In 1970, the U.S. Census Bureau set the population at 470. Today the name is Orland Hills and the population is more than 7,000 and growing. During difficult economic times, village leaders found a way to build roads, schools, churches, shopping centers and beautiful homes. Racial and ethnic diversity occurred on its own as people found themselves feeling welcomed, accepted and at home with others who shared the American dream of building community through determination and hard work.

As the village continued to grow its reputation as a family friendly community with modest to low property taxes also grew. The village began to celebrate itself. In 1993 the first Orland Hills Jamboree became a success. That same year, it's fair to say another very important event took place. A man who, over the years has grown to be a very dear friend of mine, Kyle R. Hastings, was elected to serve as the Mayor of Orland Hills.

As history would have it, 1993 was also the year I was first sworn in as the U.S. Representative for Illinois' First Congressional District. And, while there are many things I could say to describe the leadership that Mayor Hastings has brought to this thriving community his own words best describe his dedication to public service. In an interview he gave to the Chicago Tribune in May 2004 Mayor Hastings said ``I'm like the DePaul Basketball Coach Ray Meyer of mayors. If someone needs something, I'm there to help 'em, and we're always winning.''

In that same story, the newspaper reported that under Mayor Hastings' leadership, the village had balanced its budget for 10 consecutive years. It built lighted ballfields, greatly expanded its recreational programs and resurfaced about half its streets. Orland Hills also spent more than $4.5 million building a village government complex, a public works facility and a recreation/senior center without issuing bonds or increasing property taxes. The report also noted Hastings' ability to attract a Wal-Mart and other small businesses to a strip mall, a decision that, today, continues to bring tax revenue and jobs into the Orland Hills community.

Mr. Speaker, I must also take a moment to highlight the Village's Administrator, John A. Daly, whose effective leadership played a decisive role in securing a $6,000 Local Tourism Grant from the Chicago Southland Convention & Visitors Bureau.

Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons and more, it is my sincere honor to enter into the Congressional Record this heartfelt tribute to the residents of Orland Hills, their Honorable Mayor Kyle R. Hastings, the trustees and appointed leadership of Administrator John A. Daly, and the Chairman of the 50th Anniversary Committee, an Orland Hills Trustee and the Mayor's son, Kyle R. Hastings II. I also want to pay tribute to the thousands of Orland Hills residents who spend significant social capital every day to make their village a true social network . . . a real place to live and work and raise families.

At a time when so much of our nation is beset with tough budgets or less than stellar policy and political leaders, the Village of Orland Hills has much to celebrate. I am deeply proud to serve the interests of this thriving community and I pray for the good health and prosperity of its citizens--and good weather this weekend--as thousand assemble to take part in a festive atmosphere of family, food and fun from June 24 through 26, at Kelly Park at 16675 S. Haven Avenue in Orland Hills. It will be a true American celebration, not of bricks and mortar but of the power of people and the spirit of sharing that makes our nation great and makes Orland Hills a place of pride for us all.

May God continue to bless and keep this community, the state of Illinois and our nation. Amen.

I want to thank the gentleman from California for yielding this time and recognizing me for this discussion.

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to H.R. 910, the Upton-Inhofe dirty air act, because this bill is an extreme and excessive piece of legislation, and it is simply bad public policy. This bill would ignore the warnings from the respected scientific community simply because policymakers do not like what that science is telling us, and it will place earnings and profits above protecting the American public.

I applaud the Obama administration for making a clear and unequivocal statement yesterday that the President would veto this bill if it ever made it to his desk.

Mr. Chairman, every respected and every notable scientific organization, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, as well as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are all in agreement that manmade greenhouse gases do contribute to climate change, and that these impacts can be mitigated through policy to curb these emissions.

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, many of the Nation's top public health advocacy groups, including the American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association, as well as leading civil rights groups, such as the NAACP and the Environmental Law and Poverty Center, have all come out strongly against this bill saying that it would leave our most vulnerable citizens and our most vulnerable communities unprotected if this bill were to become law.

As this USA Today poster here highlights, Mr. Chairman, there are so many more benefits in acting to address climate change, as the science tells us we must do--including energy independence, sustainability, cleaner air and water, and a healthier, more vibrant, more robust populace, just to name a few--than the option, which is living with the status quo and hoping beyond hope that the majority of the world's scientists are just plain wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this bill because the science compels me to be opposed to this bill. And I urge all of my colleagues, every one of you all, to vote against this bill.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment revokes the provisions of this act from going into effect until the EPA administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, certifies that the consequences of not regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and its subsequent impact on climate change, including the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters and the ability to likely foster political instability where societal demands exceed the capacity of governments to cope, do not jeopardize American security interests at home or abroad.

Madam Chair, the overwhelming majority of respected scientists and scientific organizations worldwide all agree that manmade greenhouse gases do contribute to climate change, and these impacts can be mitigated through policy to curb these emissions.

Just recently, a study by the National Academy of Science, conducted at the request of the U.S. Navy, concluded that climate change will pose a major challenge for the United States Navy in the emerging Arctic frontier.

One of the most serious threat analyses was done by a dozen of the country's most respected retired generals and admirals, in the 2007 CNA report, the ``National Security and the Threat of Climate Change Report.'' In this study, Madam Chair, these retired generals and admirals concluded that climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security and that the national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and national defense strategies. The report goes on to say that climate change, national security, and energy independence all pose a related set of challenges for our military; and these threats should not be ignored or pushed down the road for future action.

Unfortunately, this Upton-Inhofe bill does exactly that. It pushes the challenges of regulating greenhouse gases, which contribute to climate change, further down the road for action at some later date far into the future.

I do not believe it is in America's best interest to delay acting on these threats that we know are currently endangering our health and way of life.

Madam Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment so we are not ignoring the warnings from our most esteemed military men, and we are proactive in fighting the threat of climate change before we are past the tipping point.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I am really astounded by the remarks of my friend from California. It seems that first of all they deny the scientists that have come before the committee, the many scientific organizations throughout the world who say that climate change is a reality. They deny this science and these scientists saying we are reaching a tipping point. Now, Madam Chair, they are denying the opinion and the warnings from the command shelter of our American military. I just don't know who will convince them.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) to close.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to a hearing being held by our colleagues on the Homeland Security Committee. For those who may not be aware, the House Committee on Homeland Security is currently holding a hearing titled ``The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community's Response.''

I applaud my colleagues' diligence in ensuring that our Nation is safe. However, I am saddened to see that Members of this body feel the only way to do this is by singling out their fellow citizens, most of whom have done nothing wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I was especially saddened to read a quote from the gentleman from New York, Mr. King, who is quoted in the New York Times as stating, ``The threat is coming from the Muslim community.'' This is a prime example of history repeating itself. I would like to remind my colleagues of the abysmal treatment our nation subjected Japanese- Americans to during World War II. I encourage those who are not familiar with this disdainful period in our history to speak to those who had to live through that degradation and humiliation. In fact, they would not have to go far as our very own Mr. Honda of California can speak first-hand as to what he endured at an internment camp in Colorado.

More recently, Mr. Speaker, civil rights groups in the 1960's were subject to espionage and charges of subversion.

Examples such as this go to show us that time and time again this government has seen fit to exclude its own citizens and treat them as an internal threat. All of this, Mr. Speaker, without foundation.

This nation, Mr. Speaker, has always been a rich, diverse landscape of different ethnicities, religions, and cultures. So much so that our founding fathers saw fit to include on our Great Seal the phrase ``E pluribus unum'', out of many, one. One. One people, one country, one identity. To single out a subgroup out of the greater American identity is blatantly un-American. Our recent history has far too many examples of domestic terrorist that did not stem from the Muslim community. Names such as Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Ted Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph, The Weather Underground, and the KKK have, unfortunately, become all too familiar in our national dialogue.

All of these, whether an individual or a group, was responsible for reprehensible acts of terrorism on their fellow Americans. None of these has been found to have any connection to the Muslim community--a community that has been helpful to law enforcement in catching suspected terrorists, such as the Times Square bomber.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues and our constituents of the words of Deputy National Security Advisor, Denis McDonough. Mr. McDonough, this past Sunday, reminded Americans that ``In the United States of America, we don't practice guilt by association. And let's remember that just as violence and extremism are not unique to any one faith, the responsibility to oppose ignorance and violence rests with us all.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to acknowledge the loss of a gifted man who loved his country, his family, and his fellow man and who, throughout his life, moved seamlessly through diverse cultural and political communities all with a focus on making our country a better place to live. I'm speaking of my dear friend and former political colleague, David Ronald Reed, Sr., whose life on Earth ended on March 4, 2011. David's legacy, however, lives on through his dear wife, Judith Reed, and the family and friends he leaves behind throughout our nation. David spent the early part of his life in Chicago and the political footprint he left in our city and state still resonates in the lives of thousands of grateful Chicagoans and others, throughout our state, whose lives he touched during an important time in the rise of African-Americans and other progressive communities in the State of Illinois.

I first got to know David by observing his friendship with my brother, Fred. Aside from their friendship and their competitive spirits, I watched this brilliant man look at problems and see opportunities. David's quick mind and determination to succeed led him to step way beyond the cultural and political boundaries that, in the 1960s, so often defined the life experience of middle-class African- Americans.

David was born in Chicago, Illinois, on February 20, 1941. He was educated in the Chicago Public Schools where he attended Willard Elementary School and DuSable High School. While a student at DuSable, David honed his skills as an accomplished basketball player. Upon graduation from DuSable in 1959, his skills on the basketball court allowed him to gain a full basketball scholarship to Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. While at Drake, David became a member of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc. He graduated from Drake University in 1964 with a Bachelors of Science degree in Political Science.

David returned to Chicago where all that he had learned--in the classroom and on the basketball courts--would serve him well in the rough and tumble world of Chicago politics. After graduating from college, David worked for People's Gas Light & Coke Company for almost two years until his entry into politics in 1966.

While for the better part of his life David was a Democrat, he first came to prominence on the national stage as a young, 25-year-old Republican. Like many African-American youth in the 1960s, David and a talented group of his friends chafed at some of the old guard, ``machine'' politics of Illinois' Democratic Party. In response, David and some of his friends formed a political group, the ``New Breed Committee,'' that represented forward thinking African-American youth. Only months after they were formed, their brilliance and boldness of spirit captured the hearts and minds of a whole new generation of young African-American political activists, including me.

In 1966, in what was then a stunning political move that inspired me and so many other young people who believed in America's political process, 25-year-old David Reed--who, as a community activist, was admired in Chicago's black community for his brilliance, his organizing skills, his articulate speech, and his comfort in speaking truth to power--responded to a call from, then, candidate for the U.S. Senate, Charles Percy, to switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party! It was a strategically inspired move aimed at defeating the intransigent political forces of the long-time incumbent Congressman William L. Dawson and other factions of the Democratic machine. Shortly after David filed as a ``New Breed'' Democratic challenger to Dawson, Percy's senate campaign reached out to David and his supporters. Illinois' statewide Republican Party recognized David's passion and the opportunity to help elevate a younger generation of African-Americans while also boosting Republican Party fortunes--in Illinois and across the nation. Percy and leaders of his political organization appealed to David and his forces and told him he'd have a better opportunity to unseat Dawson if he joined the Republican ticket. David and his supporters agreed and they folded the ``New Breed Committee'' into the Republican Party's political apparatus. And the result was electric!

While David's candidacy ultimately fell short, David was part of a broader trend among African-American voters, in 1966, that led to some of the largest gains by the national Republican Party among black voters in a generation. Not only did Percy win his first campaign for the U.S. Senate that year, but 1966 was the year the U.S. Senate gained its first African-American Senator in a generation. Edward Brooke, from Massachusetts, became the first African-American to be elected to the Senate since reconstruction. Although David lost his election contest, Percy and others in Illinois' Republican Party recognized his talent. Only weeks after the election, David became one of the first, top leadership appointments by the Republican President of the Cook County Board, Richard V. Ogilvie.

David's leadership exploits brought national pride and acclaim to millions of African-Americans and others of goodwill throughout our nation. His accomplishments were profiled in the December 22, 1966 edition of Jet magazine who described him this way, ``David R. Reed, 25, the ``New Breed'' Republican who challenged Congressman William L. Dawson on Chicago's South Side was one of the first five people Richard V. Ogilvie, newly elected President of the Cook County Board, appointed to his administrative team. Reed, a native Chicagoan and former Drake University basketball star, was named an administrative assistant in the President's office. . .The members of the New Breed are mostly young, militant Negroes who are college graduates and many are Vietnam Veterans.'' From 1967 to 1971, David worked as a chief administrative aide to Ogilvie during his tenure as President of the Cook County Board and, later, during his statewide run for Illinois Governor.

In the 1970s, David returned to the Democratic Party and was active, for years, in progressive grassroots politics. David went on to play a leading role in helping to elect Chicago's first African-American Mayor, Harold Washington, in 1983. After the Mayor's death in 1987, David became chair of the Harold Washington Party where, for years, he worked tirelessly to help other African-American candidates reach their political dreams.

By the mid-1970s, David left government and launched a string of successful entrepreneurial pursuits--it was a level of work and success that would span four decades. Most of those businesses were based in Chicago and focused on various industries including a restaurant (Seafood Safari), a skating rink (Rolla World), a security agency (Best Security) and other business interests in real estate and construction. Over the years, David's consulting practice grew and he served several leading clients and companies throughout metro Atlanta, where he spent the latter part of his life.

With all that David meant to Chicago, the state of Illinois, our nation, and especially my wife, Carolyn, and I, he was so much more. He and his adoring wife, Judith, were life-long friends and adoring life partners. David and his wife, who was his high school sweetheart, led a life of passion, joy, service, and style that set an example for our nation. Over the years that I got to know him in Chicago, David remained a very dear friend. The two of us, and our wives, shared many joyous moments, and a few sorrows, along the path of life we walked together. I can truly say that the love and devotion David and Judy shared is a classic American love story that, in and of itself, is worthy of acclaim.

David was a tremendous inspiration to me, not only because of his brilliance and political skills but because of the way he carried himself. He was comfortable speaking truth to power but he did it with dignity, class, and in a way that made me, and generations of African- American men and women like me, so very, very proud.

In addition to his wife, Judy, David's legacy endures through their two children, Karren Grant who lives in Atlanta, Georgia, and David Reed, Jr., who currently resides in Denver, Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a grateful city, state and nation, it is my privilege to enter into our nation's permanent record the inspired life story of my friend, David Ronald Reed, Sr., a man whose contributions to our nation are worthy of recognition. May his soul rest in peace. And, as I close, I want Judy and his children to know that they will always have the love and support of Carolyn and me as well as a large and loving extended family in Chicago, and the State of Illinois, whose lives they so magnificently touched. May God bless all of you.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, today I am rising to speak out on the severe lack of centers and facilities for Level 1 trauma centers throughout this Nation. I introduced an amendment, which I am withdrawing.

Madam Chair, in my home State of Illinois, our family members are dying due to the tragic lack of Level 1 trauma centers in close proximity to those who need it. Sadly, our newspaper headlines, including yesterday's Chicago Sun-Times, are filled with tragic stories of victims struck by bullets, stabbed, and other kinds of trauma visited upon them. Despite the best efforts of witnesses, bystanders, and paramedics, the lack of nearby Level 1 trauma centers dramatically reduces survival rates and drives up long-term acute care needs and costs.

Madam Chair, in 1999, my son, 29-year-old Huey, was shot two blocks from a hospital. But he couldn't go to that hospital because they didn't have a Level 1 trauma center. So they had to transport him some 10 miles away, where eventually he passed.

This is just one example of one of these sad stories. It is not only patently unfair, but it's an injustice that in a Nation as vast and prosperous as ours that we have a tragic lack of such misplaced priorities by not having Level 1 trauma centers close to the communities where people reside. The fact that a community that's home to about 750,000 people on the greater South Side of Chicago, an overwhelming portion of which sits in my congressional district, does not have one Level 1 trauma care center literally results in the needless loss of life for far too many of us.

Our Nation has seen time and time again the amazing work that gifted trauma surgeons and fully equipped trauma care facilities can deliver to pull patients back from almost certain death. What I want to ensure, Madam Chair, is that the same level of care that is available in the affluent communities in this Nation is also available to the men, women and children in low-income communities.

The aforementioned editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times reported on the tragic set of circumstances that befell an 18-year-old trauma victim, who, after being struck by a bullet in a drive-by shooting last August, could not go to the nearby University of Chicago Medical Center, which was only four blocks away, because that facility did not have a trauma center. The University of Chicago Medical Center, one of the major hospitals in this Nation, does not have a level 1 trauma center. Instead, at a time when every moment counts, when every minute counts to save a life, paramedics had to drive the victim 9 miles to the nearest level 1 trauma center, to Northwestern Memorial Hospital, where the victim later died.

Madam Chair, situations like this simply should not happen in America. As I stand here today, I am fully aware of the need to provide funding to trauma centers for the financial losses they

incur. The National Trauma Care Foundation has estimated that the economic loss to trauma centers due to their treatment of the uninsured and underinsured patients is $230 million per year.

In the same Sun-Times editorial that I mentioned before, they also reported on a study last year by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which found that almost three-fourths of the Nation's emergency rooms are unable to provide round-the-clock specialty care and that almost one-fourth of hospitals cited this as a reason for the loss or downgrading of their trauma center designations.

It is time for us to address the nationwide shortage of trauma care, especially in underserved areas.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Rush

Amendment No. 572: Page 287, line 23, insert the following:

(4) not more than $100,000,000 shall be available until

expended for carrying out the provisions of Section 3505(b)

[Trauma Service Availability Grants] of Public Law 111-148

(Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise this morning to pay tribute to my esteemed colleague from the great state of Arizona, U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who with God's grace is still alive and appears to be heading toward a promising recovery. I am grateful to God for His divine intervention in the lives of those 13 other victims who, along with Rep. Giffords, were shot last Saturday at a shopping mall in Rep. Giffords' Tucson, Arizona district. Right now, news accounts indicate that those 13 people will survive their injuries.

But, Madam Speaker, six people, including a nine-year-old girl, did not survive last Saturday's gunfire by a young man who, by every account, is clearly mentally unbalanced. It is my opinion that under no set of circumstances should the gunman have been able to purchase a handgun with a 30-round magazine. That young man was able to wreak all this havoc in a matter of a few minutes before several courageous Americans rose to the occasion as they quickly wrestled the assailant to the ground.

Today, however, is a day to honor the tragic loss of life that took place last Saturday and to also pray for the continued strength and full recovery of Rep. Giffords and the others who survived.

Rep. Giffords is a brilliant woman who represents the best of what a Member of this body should be. She keeps an abiding focus on serving her constituents and, last Saturday, she was in the midst of an open air forum, ``Congress on Your Corner,'' where she and her staff had assembled a portable congressional office to, literally, take the best of their legislative and constituent service ability directly to the people who elected her to serve. Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, Rep. Giffords and her staff were operating in the best traditions of this Congress and in the best traditions of our democracy. That is why it still seems incredible to me that Americans as diverse as nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green to 79-year-old Phyllis Schneck, a mother of three and grandmother of seven, should come to this public forum only to lose their lives to a deranged assailant with a gun.

This simply should not happen in our country but, sadly, far too often it does.

Madam Speaker my prayers and support remain with Rep. Giffords and her husband, Captain Mark Kelly, a NASA astronaut, their family and the team of medical professionals and first responders who have done an amazing job in helping Rep. Giffords and the other survivors to continue to improve. I also extend my condolences to the six Americans who lost their lives that day including Gabriel Zimmerman, Rep. Giffords' community outreach director, who lost his life in the midst of serving his community.

At another day and at another time I will amplify my voice and advocacy in a manner that I hope will make a dent in the wanton proliferation and availability of guns in our society to those who clearly should not have them. But, for now, I wish God's peace and healing power upon Gabby Giffords and the other survivors of this tragic event.

I also pray for our President and for our Nation as we assemble in a spirit of community tonight, in Tucson, in a national service of prayer and reflection for the victims of this tragedy and for our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 841, the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2010, and I commend Senator Rockefeller, Congressman Ed Towns and Congressman Cliff Stearns for their leadership on the safety of blind Americans, cyclists, runners, small children, and other pedestrians.

This bill will protect the blind community from the risks posed by silent vehicles. For the blind and many others who experience physical disabilities, the biggest challenge is not the loss of their sight, but the misunderstanding and the lack of simple accommodations that make life more manageable for independent individuals.

This is especially the case with fast growing technologies that increasingly define the 21st century. We have new cars on the road and, more importantly, an increasing number of hybrid and electric vehicles being sold and manufactured in the United States.

However, with these advances we need to ensure that new technologies also reflect the safety concerns of all stakeholders on the roads-- drivers and pedestrians alike.

I am pleased that this bill addresses the critical safety concerns of disabled persons, while also encouraging better technology and economic growth.

S. 841, the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act, is good for our community. It is good for pedestrians and it is good for industry.

I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2965, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. This language, Mr. Speaker, is identical to the language that this body passed in May as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

Since that time, a legislative repeal of this law has become both more necessary and more proper.

More necessary, Mr. Speaker, because the courts have made it clear that they will not stand idly by while the United States continues to discriminate against its servicemembers.

As Secretary Gates explained recently, a legislative repeal is the only way to right this wrong as it allows the new policy to properly be implemented ``in a thoughtful and careful way'' versus the immediacy of a legislative mandate as was seen earlier this year.

Mr. Speaker, it is now, more than ever, important to remember that now is always the right time to do what is right. As illustrated by the Pentagon's own Working Group report, 70 percent of our military personnel also recognize that repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell is the right thing to do.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, an ABC News/Washington Post poll released, today, demonstrates that 77 percent of Americans support allowing open service in the U.S. military. Support for repeal is both broad and inclusive. These figures further show that now is the right time to correct this injustice.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues who question the impact of open service that our servicemembers have always lived and served dutifully in an environment of open service. Whether in Afghanistan, working alongside our allies--87 percent of which, experts say, come from nations allowing open service--and contractors who also allow open service and often work in the same environment and share the same facilities as our servicemembers. Or, during the Gulf War, when the U.S. suspended enforcement; yet no one questioned our successes or results in our mission there. These instances, among others, not only demonstrate the professionalism and adaptability of our fighting men and women but they also dispel the misconceptions about openly homosexual soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, I close with a statement from President George H. W. Bush's Assistant Secretary of Defense, Lawrence Korb. In February of this year Mr. Korb was asked ``Should Gays Serve Openly In The Military?'' His reply, Mr. Speaker, was, ``Not only is it the right thing to do, it will actually increase our security in the long run.''

Mr. Speaker, there is agreement on both sides of the aisle and across the civilian and

military populations of our country that repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell is the right thing to do. I, once again, urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3860, A bill to require reports on the management of Arlington National Cemetery. This bill requires reports from the Department of the Army and the Government Accountability Office that will help restore the American people's faith in Arlington National Cemetery and, from this point forward, ensures that this sacred space continues to maintain the high level of service that is rightfully expected by the families of our servicemembers, both living and fallen.

Mr. Speaker, I have personally seen the pain and sorrow caused by cemetery errors.

As many of my colleagues are aware, Burr Oak cemetery, in my district, faced a similar situation like that which took place at Arlington.

I understand the sorrow created by this confusion. I have seen the anguish that family members suffered. It is something that I think no family should have to endure--especially the family members and loved ones of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to our country.

It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I strongly support this legislation and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I close with a reminder to my colleagues: the families of our fallen heroes have given so much. At the very least, we owe them the certainty that the gravesites they visit at Arlington National Cemetery are, indeed, the final resting place of their loved ones.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to and honor a friend and great family woman, Mrs. Joan Clara Bertrand who made her heavenly transition on Saturday, December 4, 2010.

Mrs. Bertrand love of music, education, and helping young people achieve their dreams served as her constant companion throughout life. She developed her passion for reading at an early age when in the 5th Grade, she wrote a winning essay ``Why I want to See Marion Anderson''.

Mrs. Bertrand attended the University of Illinois at Navy Pier and subsequently the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, graduating in 1954 with a degree in Physical Education. She was a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. and served as president her senior year. Married on July 6, 1957 to the late Joseph Bertrand, Sr., the first African American to be elected citywide as City Treasurer of Chicago, she was blessed with 6 children; Joseph Jr., Joan, Jason, Justin, Jeffery, and Julian.

Though Joan held a variety of jobs in her early days upon her graduation from the University of Illinois she completed her practice teaching in Elgin, Illinois and served as a Y.M.C.A. Assistant Secretary, Social Worker, and taught for 12 years at the Chicago Board of Education's Jefferson Elementary School.

Madam Speaker, throughout her life, Joan was a member of countless community and civic organizations which centered on the education of young people including the University of Illinois Alumni Association, the University of Notre Dame, the Sisters of the Blessed Sacraments, the Chicago Teachers Union, the Illinois Teachers Association, St. Dorothy Catholic Church, St. Francis De Paula Catholic Church, Our Lady of Peace Catholic Church, Operetta Workshop, and Washington Park YMCA.

Joan began her spiritual life at Woodlawn A.M.E. Church where she served in the music ministry alongside her mentor, Ms. Robbie Terry, who had a profound effect on her. In her later years, she was an active member and strong supporter of St. Phillip Neri Church, Big Buddies Youth Services, and the Alfreda Wells Duster Civic Club.

Madam Speaker, I want to encourage Mrs. Joan Clara Bertrand's children, her sister Gwen, the entire family and many friends to always remember to look to the hills from which comes all of their help, trusting that their help will surely come from the Lord. I am truly blessed to have known her. I am honored to pay tribute to this outstanding gentlewoman and privileged to enter these words into the Congressional Record of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove Mr. Peter DeFazio, the gentleman from Oregon, as a cosponsor from H.R. 5820, cited as the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010.

Madam Speaker, we live in an age where the average length of time that a typical American worker spends on a job is from three to five years. That's why, as this month comes to a close, it is all the more remarkable that one of my most respected employees, Mrs. Judy Tucker, has served me with distinction, honor and humility for 24 years--only one year shy of a quarter century. Her commitment to service and to the people of the 1st Congressional District of Illinois is truly remarkable in this day and age. And for that, I thank her for her service.

But there's so much more to Judy Tucker's story.

When the history of Chicago's African American political community is written, Judy Tucker's name will be an important part of that vast network of tireless, determined men and women who served with distinction in those all important ``trenches''--you know, the nose-to- the grind, inner workings of government that mean the world to the typical voter, constituent and his or her family. Judy Tucker is the only employee to have served me, consistently, since I was first elected to the U. S. House of Representatives in 1992. That was 20 years ago. This tribute recognizes her for 24 years of service because, prior to my election to Congress, Judy served me capably and effectively, for four years, as my personal secretary in my Second Ward Aldermanic Office.

Judy's background in public service also includes playing key administrative leadership roles for my friend, Cook County Commissioner Jerry Butler, and, prior to that, working for several years for the iconic African American Member of Congress, Ralph Metcalfe, who also represented the people of the 1st Congressional District. It is my pleasure to note that through all of Judy's professional life she has prided herself on her service to the men and women of the City of Chicago, the State of Illinois and, for the past 20 years, the people of the 1st Congressional District that I'm so proud to serve.

As Director of Constituent Services, Judy managed those all important details of what it means to provide assistance to those constituents who need help. No matter the request, if it was within our power to assist a constituent, Judy Tucker made sure that their resource or information needs were addressed quickly, accurately and in a professional manner. There was never a request too large or too small for Judy to handle. In many ways, Judy's job is one of, if not the most important job that I have on staff. That's because her work hits home where it matters most--in the daily lives of the constituents that my staff and I are here to serve. Judy never forgot about the needs of my constituents and she worked tirelessly to

provide them with the information, services or access to resources and services that they needed for all the years I've been a member of Congress. Madame Speaker, I can't tell you how grateful I am for her capable service and how proud I am of the honor and distinction she has brought to my office.

In addition to being an effective Constituent Services Director, Judy is also a loving wife, mother and grandmother. Married to her husband, Elisheous Tucker for 38 years, she and her husband are faithful members of the Miracle House of Prayer Church. As she settles into her well deserved retirement, while my staff and I will miss her, I suspect she'll be able to spend more time with her church community, her family and friends. In addition to traveling, I can imagine her spending much more time tending to her garden, a hobby that I know she truly enjoys.

What more can I say other than every Member of Congress should be blessed to have someone of the caliber, grace and professionalism of Mrs. Judy Tucker. While my staff and I will miss her presence in our office, she will always be a valued member of the permanent ``Rush Team'' for years to come.

On behalf of my staff, my wife, Carolyn, and the people of the 1st Congressional District of Illinois, I wish Mrs. Judy Tucker all the joy and gifts that God can bestow upon her, and her family, for years and years to come.

Thank you so much, Judy, for a job well done. I value our friendship and you and your family are forever in my thoughts and prayers. My God richly bless you now and always.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank Chairman Waxman and Chairman Markey, and their capable staffs, for working with my office over the past year to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to avoid a repeat of the outrageous abuse of the public trust that left many of my constituents in Crestwood, IL, without clean drinking water for over 20 years.

In 1986, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was alerted that Village of Crestwood officials were piping in contaminated drinking water to its citizens.

Despite warnings from the state agency to end this illegal practice, incredibly, it took another 20 years, and a personal investigation from a courageous and determined private citizen, my constituent, Tricia Krause, before the state finally went back out to inspect the water supply and found that contaminated water was still being used. Twenty years!!!

Mr. Speaker, my amendment to H.R. 5320, which was adopted unanimously in committee, will compel the U.S. EPA to issue a final rule, within 12 months, requiring public water systems and states agencies to submit all compliance monitoring data electronically.

This will allow the U.S. EPA to update their systems to gather accurate and timely data collection so they are able to act more quickly and effectively against violations, especially when the public's health is in jeopardy.

This bill will also require U.S. EPA to categorize any violations of federal drinking standards and determine what types of follow-up inspections are needed, as well as the frequency of inspections the state will need to carry out, depending on the risk to public health.

By enacting this bill, as Representatives of the people, we will be able to better ensure that all citizens have access to clean, safe drinking water, and that the outrageous acts that resulted in the toxic contamination of Crestwood drinking water are never repeated.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.