Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to H.R. 2018, the so-called ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act.'' This bill is neither cooperative nor does it promote clean water.

The American people expect and deserve protection from dirty air, tainted food, and polluted water. The problem with relinquishing federal authority over environmental regulations is that these threats don't stop at state borders. The EPA recently concluded an air pollution analysis demonstrating the upwind-downwind linkages between states. That study demonstrated that my home state of Illinois receives air pollution from more than 10 states as a result of wind patterns. Illinois shares water sources, including Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River, with 11 states. Much like with air, a patchwork of regulations will do nothing to ensure my constituents have access to clean water.

H.R. 2018 removes any federal baseline for what constitutes a clean water program and leaves the process entirely under state control. It is a de facto repeal of the Clean Water Act.

We know what will happen without reasonable oversight of our nation's water sources because we have seen it before. Prior to the 1972 Clean Water Act, American rivers and streams were treated like sewers and chemical pollution was so rampant that rivers caught fire. This bill would hand our waterways and drinking water sources back to corporate polluters.

Promoters of corporate pollution regularly suggest that turning a blind eye to the destruction of our waterways, air supply, and food sources is in the economic best-interest of the country. Even if this were true, it would ignore the health and welfare of the American people. But it is not true. The Office of Management and Budget has demonstrated that the cost of implementing EPA rules over the last decade have cost as much as $29 billion, but the economic benefits of those regulations have reaped between $82 billion and $552 billion. The facts don't lie: EPA regulations save lives and stimulate economic growth.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to H.R. 2018, a bill that offers no tangible benefits and a litany of irreversible costs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to express my gratitude to President Obama for altering U.S. government policy to end the practice of denying condolence letters to the families of soldiers who commit suicide while serving abroad. I strongly support that change, and I applaud President Obama for taking this important step.

The men and women who commit suicide while serving our country on active duty overseas are casualties of war, and I strongly believe that they should be remembered as such. Those soldiers suffer the unseen wounds of war, which, though often ignored, can be devastating. Their sacrifice for our Nation should be honored and celebrated, and their surviving families and friends should know that we appreciate their loved ones' service.

In his statement announcing the policy change, the President emphasized that these men and women suffered the consequences of war, and they did not receive the services and treatment that they needed. As the President emphasized, that needs to change. We need to do far more to help those who bear the burden of our wars, by ensuring that they have the physical and emotional support they need, access to quality mental health services, and assistance to help them and their families cope with the immense stress of war.

By changing this policy, the President has taken an important step towards reducing the stigma surrounding the invisible injuries of war. We need to continue to work to ensure that soldiers know what services are available to them and feel comfortable seeking out the help that they need.

The act of sending a condolence letter recognizes the tragic loss and enormous sacrifice of our military families. The mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters who lose a loved one to either a visible or unseen wound of war should know that we, as a country, mourn their losses. We should honor the sacrifice of all who give their lives in the service of our country.

Mr. Speaker, the more people know about the Republican plan for Medicare, the less they like it. So it's no wonder that the Republicans are trying to prevent House Members from telling our constituents about the plan to end Medicare by actually censoring our mailings to our own districts.

The Democrats aren't alone in saying the Republican plan ends Medicare. Tom Scully, former Bush administration head of Medicare, says the Republican plan ``gets rid of the current Medicare program'' and that it is ``a fundamental structural change in the program.'' It's so fundamental that beginning in 2022 the out-of-pocket costs for enrollees would double, and they would be forced to pick a private insurance plan without guaranteed benefits.

Republicans can call their plan whatever they want--sorta-care, maybe-care, we don't care--but they can't call it Medicare. They can try all they want, but they can't keep seniors from learning the truth.

This program that they introduced ends Medicare.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2112, the Agriculture appropriations bill. And like so many before me, I'm particularly opposed to cuts in funding to provide food and nutrition to American families, to pregnant women and infants and children and seniors and families struggling in this country to put food on the table at a time of rising unemployment and poverty.

I have to tell you I am at a loss to understand why my Republican colleagues are so insistent in providing even more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires that they are willing to take food from children. In the Republican world view, apparently, tax cuts to the very wealthy and subsidies to big oil companies and companies that send jobs overseas are a bigger priority than Medicare and Medicaid and education. And, again, in this bill they even take food out of the mouths of hungry children to give those tax breaks.

Understand what this bill does. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides low-income seniors with emergency food and nutrition education, is cut by more than 20 percent, or $40 million. In this bill the Republicans will take food out of the mouths of hungry, poor, old people.

The SNAP reserve fund will get $2 billion less. SNAP, formerly called food stamps, provides critical nutrition support to low-income families, and the reserve helps meet the demands created by unexpected participation in higher-than-projected food costs, food costs everybody knows are going way up. And with high unemployment and food prices rising, the reserve fund is more likely to be tapped than ever before, and depleting reserve funds will increase the likelihood of a food crisis in the United States of America.

Let me tell you what these cuts mean to people in Illinois. Lorraine Dzieginski is 82 years old and started receiving Social Security benefits at age 65. Her monthly benefit is $695 a month. But this amount doesn't even cover her property taxes, her home insurance, her supplemental health insurance and utilities. That amounts to well over $700. She relies partially on the SNAP, or food stamp program, to feed herself. Her monthly benefit is $16, the minimum SNAP allotment. Republican cuts likely mean that other seniors like Ms. Dzieginski will be turned away from SNAP if they find themselves in that circumstance next year. Our seniors deserve better.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Thank you very much. It's still $2 billion lower than the President's request.

We want to make sure the money is there at a time of high unemployment, of disappearing 401(k)s and savings. And the Emergency Food Assistance Program is cut by more than 20 percent, or $60 million. And TEFAP provides commodities to food banks to assist in relief efforts. And with unemployment still high, and I know this in my district, many people who used to contribute to food banks are now waiting in line to get the food to keep food on their tables. And with diminished Federal support, they may show up only to find empty shelves.

And then we get to the WIC program. I'm a mother and a grandmother, and for the first time in American history, we will turn away eligible mothers and children from the program, an effective program. With it, infants and children can get a healthy start in life, and without it they can suffer from lifelong health problems. For every dollar spent, WIC provides health care savings of as much as $3--$3 for every $1 spent.

So we talk a lot about children, we've talked a lot about seniors in this House, but let's be clear. The choice before us is not whether we have to deny children food in order to reduce the deficit. The choice is whether we will

make millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share so that low- income mothers, infants, and children will be fed.

The choice is clear. Vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Last night's vote on raising the debt ceiling is further proof that the Republican majority plans to hold the full faith and credit of the United States hostage while they demand as ransom extreme cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

News flash: The American people simply won't sacrifice Medicare and Medicaid and the guaranteed benefits they provide.

Seniors across the country are speaking out: Hands off Medicare, and, Don't slash Medicaid's health and long-term care benefits to pay for tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, Big Oil and companies that offshore jobs.

Unlike the Republicans, Democrats are serious about responsible and real deficit reduction.

The Republican plan actually increases unemployment and the deficits, ends Medicare, further erodes our middle class and hurts poor children, all to increase the fortunes of oil companies, millionaires and billionaires. This is a plan that goes against the majority of Americans, and we won't have it.

There is a lot of talk and legalese about what is going on today, but the reality is what the Republicans are trying to do underneath all of that legalese language is to enshrine in law the Republican Ryan budget. By voting for the rule, what you do is to put into force that budget.

What does that budget do? It ends Medicare.

Now, there are people who resent that term--that oh, no, we're really going to save it. Well, I'm going to tell you, when you take away the guaranteed benefits of Medicare--that's what seniors get right now--for people 55 and under, they are thrown into the not-so-loving arms of the insurance companies, and their costs will increase out of their own pockets by about $6,000. That's what the bill does.

The bill also turns Medicaid upside down, which is not only the health care plan for poor children in the United States but also the largest payer for nursing homes and home health care. That is the single biggest part of Medicaid--paying for nursing home care and home health care. So it's another slap at the seniors.

The other thing that the legislation does is to offer more tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. It lowers the tax rates for corporation, many of which aren't even paying any taxes right now, a couple of which got tax refunds from the government. You've got major companies paying fewer taxes than ordinary Americans. That's what this does.

The American people aren't stupid. They will understand that this is another doubling down on cutting Medicare. It will be apparent by the end of this day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Vicki Gottlich for her more than three decades of advocacy on behalf of senior citizens and their families. She has been a treasured resource for all of us concerned about protecting and strengthening Medicare and Medicaid and improving the wellbeing of older Americans. Along the way, she has also worked on issues that affect persons with disabilities and working families.

Vicki is leaving the Center for Medicare Advocacy, where she has served as Senior Policy Attorney since January 2000. Before that, she worked as staff attorney for the National Senior Citizens Law Center, the managing attorney for the Prince George's County Senior Citizens Law Project, and the associate director of the National Law Center's Institute of Law and Aging at George Washington University.

In each of those roles, Vicki demonstrated her absolute commitment to improving the lives of senior citizens. In my work as co-chair of the Seniors Task Force and a member of the House Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Health, I am able to work with many skilled policy analysts. Vicki is certainly one of the very best. She has provided my office with in-depth and cogent analyses of legislative proposals and regulations for years. We have come to rely heavily on Vicky's knowledge and experience and she has always been available to answer questions, provide recommendations or undertake research.

Vicki, though, brings more than policy astuteness to her work. She always keeps her eye on the real-life impacts that policies have on our constituents and their families. A typical conversation with Vicki will include plenty of discussion about legal points and policy precedents, but it will also include numerous examples of the specific problems facing actual people and how solutions can be crafted to solve those problems.

I want to thank Vicki for sharing her wisdom and skills over the past years. I wish her well in her new role at the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at CMS, where she will continue to work to improve access to affordable health care for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I do not support S. 990, which extends three controversial PATRIOT Act provisions. There is a much better way to safeguard our national security without jeopardizing the privacy and civil liberties of American citizens. This legislation reauthorizes these sections of the PATRIOT Act without making necessary improvements, and it fails to even address other problematic practices, including the use of National Security Letters.

Among the provisions included in this extension is Section 215, which expands the government's ability to private, confidential records, without showing probable cause or direct connection to a foreign power or agent. This includes library, and bookstore records, as well as highly personal information such as medical records.

In addition to my concerns about what is in this bill, I am concerned about what is not in it. Instead of engaging in a real debate about reforming the PATRIOT Act, we are simply continuing the bad policies of the past. Tonight's bill fails to address the widespread use (and abuse) of National Security Letters. The National Security Letters provisions of the PATRIOT Act, which drastically expand government authority to demand private records without prior court approval, have been used hundreds of thousands of times since 2001.

There is another way to protect our citizens, without treading on their rights. Congressman Conyers has offered an alternative proposal, H.R. 1805, laying out a compromise approach to improving the PATRIOT Act. I am a cosponsor. Congressman Conyers' legislation, which has the support of the Obama Administration and the intelligence community, as well as bipartisan Senate support, reauthorizes the three expiring provisions for two and a half years, rather than the six-year extension in S. 990. It makes critical improvements to prevent the abuse of fundamental civil liberties, including tightening the requirements on roving wiretaps (and eliminating the so-called ``John Doe Roving Wiretap,'' under which the government can obtain surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped).

In addition, for the first time, Congressman Conyers' bill sunsets the use of National Security Letters (NSL) and makes a number of changes to abusive NSL practices. H.R. 1805 strengthens the factual basis required for use of an NSL, clarifies the standards for including a gag order in an NSL, and improves public reporting on the number of NSLs issued each year.

I do not believe that these invasive authorities should be extended in the absence of real improvement in the civil liberties protections. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I know that we can protect our citizens without treading on their rights. We do not have to choose between our security and our values. Instead, we should pass legislation that grants the intelligence community the tools they require while also protecting the rights and liberties of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor Alderman Mary Ann Smith, who represented Chicago's wonderful 48th Ward for 21 years before her retirement this May. Alderman Smith has dedicated over 30 years of her life to public service.

As Alderman, she was especially active in public safety, community- directed development, transit and walkability, lakefront planning, animal rights, health care, seniors' issues, affordable housing and public sector accountability. Her recent groundbreaking advocacy to combat Medicare and Medicaid fraud and the exploitation of the mentally ill has helped make nursing homes and our communities safer.

Alderman Smith was chair of the City Council Committee on Chicago Parks where she worked to restructure the Chicago Park District and its management, improve programming, secure the parks and increase access to recreation for all Chicagoans with an emphasis on teenagers and youth. She was also a member of the City Council Committees on Traffic Control and Safety, Buildings, Rules and Ethics, Budget, Finance, Historical Landmark Preservation, License and Consumer Protection and the Mayoral Task Forces on Lake Michigan and on Transportation. She served on the city's Advisory Council on Chicago ``Green'' development and as a commissioner of both the Northeastern Illinois Plan Commission and the Chicago Plan Commission.

Mary Ann is extremely proud of the diversity of the 48th Ward. She worked to integrate immigrant groups into the mainstream business, financial and social structure of the neighborhood. An early supporter of the Human Rights Ordinance, she interacted closely with advocacy groups to protect the rights of all people. She served as vice chair of the Illinois Citizens for Better Care, a group which advocates for nursing home residents' rights and was founder of the Committee Against Nursing Home Election Fraud.

Internationally recognized as a leader on building livable communities and protecting the environment, particularly around Chicago's lakefront, Alderman Smith represented the city of Chicago on the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives. She served as vice-chair of the City Council Subcommittee on the Chicago Lakefront, as a vice-chair of the Lake Michigan Federation (now the Alliance for the Great Lakes), and was a founding member of PCB's Gone. Her leadership on environmental issues earned her a United Nations Environment Programme Award for Citizen Action to Protect the Global Environment and a fellowship from the German Marshall Fund of the United States to study urban planning in several European cities. Alderman Smith's commitment to employ new alternative energy and flood control technologies in the 48th Ward includes the installation of the nation's first water-permeable alley in 2001 and the creation of rain gardens.

Her work on public safety and transportation in the community include unsnarling long-standing traffic and transportation problems. She was instrumental in helping to organize the state's first city/suburban traffic and transportation and in obtaining funding for a project to improve pedestrian safety and neighborhood walkability.

Alderman Smith is a passionate advocate against cruelty to animals, and, in response to information about the cruel treatment of elephants by trainers, she introduced legislation that would outlaw the use of disciplinary methods that inflict pain and/or cause injury to the animal.

I have had the pleasure of sharing an office with Alderman Smith since 1999, and our offices have collaborated closely on issues and projects including environmental concerns, animal rights, community safety, nursing homes and seniors, education, and youth. I consider her a treasured friend and wish her fulfillment and success as she embarks in a new direction.

Mary Ann and her husband Ronald, a professor at John Marshall Law School who recently served as chairman of the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section, have lived in the Edgewater and Uptown communities for more than 30 years. They have two sons, Michael, a software engineer in Portland, Oregon, and Matthew, a clinical psychologist who also lives in the 48th Ward, and many beloved pets.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 344, had I been present, I would have voted, ``no.''

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Sarbanes

I would like to speak in favor of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

For those who are interested in fiscal responsibility, this amendment would freeze Department of Defense spending until the Pentagon is able to pass an audit--able to pass an audit. This freeze could be waived by the President if it would harm our national security. And my amendment excludes spending for Wounded Warriors and defense personnel accounts as well as for overseas contingency operations.

Though defense spending currently accounts for over 20 percent of our Federal budget, DOD remains one of the few Federal agencies unable to pass an independent audit. This leaves the Pentagon vulnerable to serious waste and fraud. A recent GAO review of selected major weapons systems found that $70 billion had been lost through waste, mainly due to ``poor management and execution problems.'' Tens of billions more have been paid to fraudulent contractors.

I remember back in 2002, then-Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld admitted that he could not account for $2.3 trillion in Pentagon expenditures. For over two decades, the Pentagon has been under obligation to face an audit, and currently it must be auditable by September 2017. But recent status reports have raised serious concerns that this goal will not be met.

Waste and fraud in the Pentagon have serious consequences, both for our fiscal stability and our national security. My amendment provides a real incentive for the Pentagon finally to pass an audit. It is irresponsible to continue what Secretary Gates has called the gusher of defense spending without ensuring that we know where taxpayer dollars are going.

I believe this is a commonsense idea. It is also a bipartisan one. My amendment is very similar to a proposal that Senator Coburn made to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform on which I also served last year. It is a constitutional requirement that ``a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.'' Well, these are very difficult financial times, and we're faced with difficult choices and the prospect of cutting critical government programs. This accounting of funds has become more important than ever, including the Pentagon.

I yield 1 minute of my remaining time to the gentlewoman from California, Barbara Lee.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, since we agree, that the

problem is that the Pentagon has never explained where its money is going, and because there are waivers within this, that anything declared in need of national defense, and we certainly take care of our troops, will be excluded from the legislation, that it is time, finally. It's not just the last year, the year before, the year before that. It's been about 20 years before the Pentagon itself has explained where all the money goes.

And being such a huge part of our budget, it seems like now would be a good time, particularly because there are so many open doors left in this so that our national security and our troops are in no way jeopardized by my bill. I would really appreciate all of us being able to work together to make sure that the taxpayers know where this huge amount of money is going. The time is long overdue.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I ask how much time remains?

Vote ``yes.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I am getting a real kick out of this debate. I really am. You know, we hear one after another of my Republican colleagues coming up here and self-righteously talking about ending the demagoguery and we should end the TV ads.

And I just want to remind you that through the 2010 elections, the Republicans went on television and, yes, how about demagogued, the issue of Medicare, saying that Democrats wanted to cut $500 billion from Medicare.

Well, let's talk about the truth. We were challenged, just a little while ago: What is your plan? Well, here was our plan to save Medicare and that was to say in The Affordable Care Act, yes, we are going to cut subsidies to the insurance companies that meant that we were bilking the government and the taxpayers, and we were having to overpay them, and, yes, we are going to cut waste and fraud from the Medicare program.

And that's how we are going to save $500 billion. But not only would we not cut a single penny from benefits, but we were actually able to increase benefits while trimming Medicare.

We, you know--so you scared the heck out of seniors but never mentioned, of course, at the same time we reduced the cost of Medicare.

We improved Medicare by adding to its solvency; we closed the doughnut hole, making prescription drugs more affordable; and we provided a wellness exam every year at no cost; and we provided preventive services with no cost sharing. But nevertheless, on television, those ads warned against those Democrats who didn't cut one thing from Medicare and improve it. And now you are saying, well, we are not going to do anything to people 55 and under. To me that sounds like 55 and under, you better look out.

Now, the ads in New York are working because people love their Medicare. And what they don't want to see, you know, all but four Republicans voted to literally end Medicare.

You can call it something else, but you can't call it Medicare because those guaranteed benefits are gone. It makes huge cuts in Medicare benefits. Seniors that fall under the new plan would have to pay about $6,000 more a year. That's what the Congressional Budget Office says, $6,000 more a year out of pocket for their health care, and it would put insurance company bureaucrats in charge of seniors' health care, letting insurers decide what tests and what treatment that seniors get, throwing seniors back into the arms of the insurance companies who have shown no love to them.

And so let's look at what the American people think about Medicare. Well, if you are 65 years and older, 93 percent of Americans say the Medicare program as it is right now is very important or somewhat important to them, actually 83 percent very important.

If they are 55 to 64, 91 percent say Medicare is very important; and if you are 40 to 54, we have got 79 percent of Americans who say the Medicare program is very or somewhat important; and if you are 18 to 39, 75 percent.

People get it. Medicare works. Medicare is efficient. Medicare is good for our country, for people with disabilities and for the seniors. And if we are looking to save Medicare, we do have a plan. We know how to make that more efficient. We have done it in the Affordable Care Act. And we are willing to sit down and talk about how we make Medicare more efficient, but not by ruining, destroying and getting rid of Medicare to the point that you've got to find another name. It won't be Medicare anymore.

And so they've admitted, it seems to me, that people 55 and younger, you better look out. Because that program that will allow our seniors to live perhaps to 90 years old, people who are going to be eligible for Medicare as it is right now will no longer be in place. And we are not talking about rich people----

We're talking about poor seniors and middle class people.

Don't support this plan.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

House Republicans are waging a war against women and they have made their extreme and dangerous agenda clear--to undermine women's access to reproductive health care.

H.R. 3 is a radical attack on women and their reproductive rights. It extends unprecedented limitation on access to abortions, and it singles out and punishes women who want access to this legal service.

Do not be confused. H.R. 3 goes far beyond current law--which is already highly restrictive, and which I oppose. The Hyde Amendment already prohibits women enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare, federal employees, women serving in the military, women in federal prisons, Peace Corps volunteers, and women seeking care under the Indian Health Services Act from getting the care they need. Its very narrow exceptions do not even give women facing severe health conditions like cancer access to medically necessary abortion care so they can receive chemotherapy treatment.

One of the original goals of this legislation was to narrow the already harmful Hyde exceptions even further. The bill's sponsors tried to redefine rape and incest--to take us back to a time when saying ``no'' wasn't enough. Public outcry at this mean-spirited and hurtful attempt to make it harder for survivors of rape and incest to access coverage for abortion services forced its removal. Unfortunately, based on the House Judiciary Committee Report accompanying H.R. 3, some members of this chamber are still intent on narrowing the rape exception.

This bill is both hurtful and offensive. H.R. 3 expands an unfair, punitive policy that is dangerous to women's health and applies it to millions of women and men in the private insurance market. No one should be limited in terms of their access to safe and legal abortion.

This legislation redefines the concept of ``government funding'' far beyond the current common understanding. It prohibits even private and nonfederal government funds from being spent on any activity remotely related to the provision of abortion--any time federal money is involved in funding or subsidizing other, nonabortion-related care.

This legislation increases taxes on small businesses with abortion coverage in their private insurance plans. For decades, small businesses have been fighting insurance company premium demands and struggling to maintain health insurance coverage for their employees. Many of those small businesses--1 in 3--are owned by women, but this bill affects both men and women.

The Affordable Care Act provides small businesses with tax credits to help make health insurance both accessible and affordable. Those tax credits are available now. Today, they are worth up to 35 percent of health insurance premium costs. By 2014, they will be worth up to 50 percent.

The Republicans have already passed legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act--taking away tax credits from small business owners and employees who need help. Repeal is bound to fail. But H.R. 3 takes another course--it would repeal this benefit for any small business insurance policy that includes coverage of abortions.

Small business owners will face an unfair and discriminatory choice. If they need the tax credit to make coverage for themselves and their employees affordable, they will need to drop the abortion benefit. If they want to keep the benefit, they will have to go without the tax credit--raising their costs and taking away money that could be used to expand their business and maybe hire another employee. H.R. 3 will raise taxes on millions of small businesses.

Nearly 90 percent of private health insurance policies offer abortion coverage and this is a blatant attempt to force employers to drop abortion coverage from their private health insurance plans.

Now is the time to work on the issues that are most important to Americans--creating jobs and improving the economy--rather than punishing small businesses and workers through legislation that takes health care away from women.

American women will suffer if this bill becomes law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Teacher Appreciation week and the extraordinary work done by America's teachers to provide students with the knowledge and skills they will need to compete and thrive in the 21st century.

Every day, hard working men and women go into the classroom to prepare our children for a successful future. For this, they deserve not just our utmost gratitude and respect but fair and adequate compensation. Instead, teachers and other public workers across the nation are under attack. Earlier this year, I went to Wisconsin to lend support for teachers and other state workers who are not only fighting cutbacks in salaries and benefits but the loss of long-standing collective bargaining rights. Fortunately, in Wisconsin and other states, people are turning out in large numbers to show opposition to those attacks and demonstrate support for teachers and public employees.

Rather than demonize teachers, it is imperative that we recognize the essential role they play in our society not only this week but throughout the year. President Obama has spoken at length about America's need to ``Win the Future.'' As our nation looks to achieve that objective, we must not lose sight of the fact that nothing has a more direct impact on student achievement than having a great teacher in the classroom.

As a former elementary school teacher, I know just the teaching profession is both rewarding and challenging. I encourage every American to take a moment this week to thank a teacher for the incredible work they are doing to make our nation a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Yom Ha'atzmaut, Israel's Independence Day, and to mark the 6314 anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel.

Despite enduring decades of war and terror, Israel has emerged as a strong and vibrant democracy, a close U.S. friend and ally, and a global leader in technology, energy, and scientific innovation.

For me, as a Jew, ties to Israel are very personal. Growing up, I saved my money to buy tree certificates to help make the Israeli desert bloom. As a member of Congress, I continue to be a strong supporter of the State of Israel, of a vibrant U.S.-Israel relationship, and of a peaceful and secure future for Israel and the entire region.

The U.S.-Israel relationship, begun a mere minutes after Israel's founding, remains critically important to both our nations. Based on shared values and interests, this deep and abiding friendship is as important now as ever, in the face of international threats and a growing tide of delegitimization.

In February, I traveled to Israel with the Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago. In addition to discussions about regional developments and critical security issues, I also had the opportunity to learn more about Israel's excellent social programs as well as cutting edge research into green technology. As with previous trips to Israel, I left with both great pride and a renewed hope for a lasting peace solution.

Today, we mark the 63rd anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel, our steadfast friend, ally, and partner, and we reaffirm the unbreakable bonds between our two countries.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Chicago Alderman Helen Shiller, who has been the Alderman of the 46th Ward since 1987. Alderman Shiller is retiring after 24 years of dedicated service to the residents of the 46th Ward and the City of Chicago. She is a tireless, passionate advocate for her constituents and for the community. She has been an especially powerful champion for those whose voices too often go unheard--the poor, immigrants, those who need affordable housing or shelter, the hungry.

Alderman Shiller is the Chair of the Chicago City Council's Committee on Human Relations, where she has a long and outstanding record of achievement. She played a key role in the passage of the human rights ordinance, recycling programs and city responsibility for public health and safety in the Chicago Public Schools. She initiated and passed a tough anti-apartheid ordinance in 1990. Her budget amendment tripled the city's AIDS budget in

1992. She co-sponsored the domestic partners ordinance extending benefits for unmarried couples. Throughout her aldermanic career, Alderman Shiller has fought for affordable housing and for city budget investments to make Chicago a more affordable place to live.

A strong voice for sustainability and green technologies, Alderman Shiller took the lead on a voluntary pilot program for multi-unit residential building recycling and created a task force to improve the city's recycling program. She is an advocate for LEED certification in all planned developments as well as in other development projects throughout the city.

In 1989, Alderman Shiller sponsored a resolution that created a sub- committee to focus on ways to end domestic violence. As a result of her leadership, the city now funds domestic violence counseling centers and programs for supervised visitations.

Alderman Shiller has continuously worked to keep the 46th Ward both economically and culturally diverse, while at the same time working to develop virtually every area of the ward. It is important to Alderman Shiller that the 46th Ward continue to be defined by its unique mix of people with very different economic and cultural backgrounds. She has worked on many models to retain this diversity and, with the City's Department of Housing, developed the Planned Purchase Price Assistance Program (now called CPAN), which provides opportunities for home ownership for working families.

Alderman Shiller led a comprehensive and inclusive community planning process resulting in the development of affordable housing and thriving retail development at Wilson Yard in the heart of Uptown.

Helen Shiller received her high school diploma from Woodstock Country School in Vermont in 1965. She attended the University of Wisconsin at Madison as a history major and received her BA in 1969. In 2005, she graduated from DePaul University's School for New Learning's Master's Program where her focus was public policy.

I am confident that Helen will continue to contribute to her community and city. I wish her the very best, and I am proud to call her my friend.