Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and honor the life of an important and respected member of the Chicago community, Terrence P. Allen, who recently passed away at the young age of 54. Terry Allen has been a long and outstanding activist for the middle-class, guiding him through a long and distinguished career fighting for workers. Terry passed away on November 11, 2014 after heroically battling cancer.

Terry served for decades as a dedicated leader of working people, taking over the city's largest electrical workers union in 2011 as the Business Manager for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 134. In this role, Terry represented thousands of Chicagoland workers with great distinction. As distinguished as he was on behalf of workers, Terry made many other contributions to the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago for which we are all grateful.

Terry's top priority was always his family and the love and support they provided was most important in his life. He married the love of his life, Jean Conrick, and together they raised 3 children; Billy, Amanda and Michael. Terry was the youngest of 8 children born to Thomas and Irene Allen. His loving family included his siblings Barbara (John) Wiemhoff, Nancy (Hon. Tim) Cullerton, Honorable Tom (Jan), Jim (Lin), Tim (Mary), Dan (Sue) and his twin brother, Pat (Laura), along with his wife's family; parents, Bill and Camille Conrick, Mary Ann (Dan) Jordan, Bill Conrick, Joanne (Dan) Lynch, Tom Conrick, and Cathy (Jay) Ek. Uncle and Great Uncle Terry will be fondly remembered by his 46 nieces and nephews.

Mr. Speaker, Terrence Allen was an inspiration to all who knew him. I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering him for his tireless service and dedication. I join his family, friends and IBEW Local 134 to honor his legacy, celebrate his life and remember his illustrious contributions to the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago. I wish to express my deepest condolences to his family, and may God bless the

Allen/Conrick family and the memory of a man who was truly loved by his family, his friends, and his community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Village of Elmwood Park as they celebrate their Centennial. The historic election held on April 8, 1914, established Elmwood Park as an official village and was the catalyst to the village's remarkable transformation.

Thanks to the vision of Mr. John Mills, a Chicago area developer, the 1927 Westwood subdivision in Elmwood Park became one of the early ``planned communities'' in our nation. Mr. Mills' Westwood project was the largest residential program of its kind ever attempted in the State of Illinois. The $25 million building program provided paved streets, sewers, sidewalks and plans for 1,679 bungalows spread over 245 acres in Elmwood Park.

Due to the ambitious project, the population increased over 700 percent growing from 1,380 to 11,270 people by 1930, making Elmwood Park the sixth fastest growing community in the nation at that time.

The Honorable Elmer W. Conti was elected Village President in 1953. Under his guidance, Elmwood Park was recognized for honorable mention in the All-American awards in 1954, 1955, and 1958 for its village administration, financial stability, citizen involvement and progress in education. Village President Conti served for 32 years, retiring in 1985.

In the last 25 years the Village of Elmwood Park has had outstanding leaders. Honorable Peter N. Silvestri served as Village President from 1989 to 2013 and the current Village President, Honorable Angelo ``Skip'' Saviano, elected in 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the Centennial of the Village of Elmwood Park. I am truly honored to have such an outstanding community in my district.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Republic of China, commonly called Taiwan, on its upcoming National Day of the Republic of China on October 10, 2014.

This year marks the 35th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, which has facilitated a special relationship between the United States and Taiwan. Since 1979, we have enjoyed close security cooperation, culture exchange and trade flows. The economies of the U.S. and Taiwan are tightly linked, and Taiwan has been an important trading partner to the United States.

I would also like to recognize the accomplishments of President Ma Ying-jeou in contributing to peace and security in the region. During his presidency, Taiwan and Mainland China have had constructive dialogue between their leaders. I hope that this dialogue will continue.

As a member of the Taiwan Caucus, I have had the opportunity to learn much more about the amazing country that is Taiwan. As a beacon of freedom and democracy in the global community, I look forward to continuing to work with Taiwan to strengthen our friendship and alliance.

I wish the people of Taiwan a happy Double Ten, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this week the House will vote on loosely related bits of campaign fodder bundled together and labeled a ``jobs'' bill. But if we really want to help American workers and boost our economy, let's take a vote to increase the minimum wage. Let's show hardworking Americans that it is simply unacceptable for a mother working full-time to live $400 below the Federal poverty line.

Let's show businesses that we understand that added buying power for our workers is the boost this economic recovery needs. President Truman once said: Full human dignity requires at least a minimum level of economic sufficiency and security.

The American people deserve that and more. The American people want and deserve a vote to increase the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, this week the men and women through their Representatives in Congress will welcome an ally and a friend. When Ukraine's new President, Petro Poroshenko, addresses a joint session of Congress on Thursday, he will do so at a pivotal moment in his country's history.

Ukraine is facing an existential threat from Russian aggression. President Putin's incitement of violence in eastern Ukraine and arming of separatist rebels there must stop.

The United States has responded with tough sanctions. I will push for even tougher sanctions if President Putin continues to disregard Ukrainian sovereignty.

The people of Ukraine are fighting for democracy. The United States stands behind them in their efforts.

Let this week's address only strengthen the longstanding alliance and friendship between the United States and our friend Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Cleats Manufacturing, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary.

Cleats Manufacturing is a union premier fabricator of HVAC sheet metal products. Since its incorporation in 1964 by Ernie DeLord, Cleats has been located in Chicago providing jobs for our hard-working constituents.

Over the last 50 years, their product line has expanded rapidly. Beginning with slip and drive cleats, Cleats' product line soon included rectangular duct and fitting, spiral pipe, CleatSeal gasketed round fittings, welded duct, and other sheet metal products.

Cleats Manufacturing not only provides an excellent American made product but also prides itself in its employees. Their union trained team are tradesmen in the industry

and will work with customers on any job from start to finish no matter how big or small.

The company would not be where it is today without the vision of Ernie DeLord's nephew Steve Passannante who began working for the company in 1974. When Steve began, the product line consisted only of sheet metal connectors. He had the vision of the company growing from a connector manufacturer to a full service HVAC fabrication shop. Steve expanded the company and built relationships with some of the largest contractors in Chicago.

Cleats is now one of the largest HVAC fabricators in the Chicagoland area.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Cleats Manufacturing on their 50th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, just last month, hundreds of thousands of residents in Toledo, Ohio, were left without access to potable water and faced an extended drinking water ban, after unsafe toxin levels, likely caused by a Lake Erie algal bloom, were found at a city water treatment plant. In January, Charleston, West Virginia, residents faced a similar ban on their drinking water after a chemical spill.

George Bernard Shaw once said:

Success does not consist in never making mistakes, but in

never making the same one a second time.

One would think, after two new incidents that left hundreds of thousands of Americans without access to clean drinking water, this body would jump into action to prevent this from ever happening again. And yet, Mr. Speaker, the House hasn't only refused to act, yesterday we actually voted to prevent the administration from acting.

Again and again my colleagues continue to introduce bills and riders that would endanger our drinking water while ignoring basic scientific principles in the process. Today more than 117 million Americans get their drinking water from systems that rely on rivers, streams, and wetlands which, at this very moment, are not clearly protected under the Clean Water Act. Let me say that again: 117 million Americans are getting their drinking water from bodies of water that may not be protected from pollution or destruction.

American families deserve clarity, and that is exactly what the administration is trying to provide with their proposed Clean Water Act rule; and, unbelievably enough, that is exactly what the House voted to prevent yesterday.

For years we relied on the Clean Water Act to protect the Nation's waters. For my constituents back home in Chicago, that meant everything from the wetlands on the shores of Lake Michigan to the inland streams that flow across the Great Lakes region. But two Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 changed all that, leaving us with a confusing, time-consuming, and frustrating process for determining which of the Nation's waters are now protected under Federal law and which are not.

It is imperative that we close what has become a harmful loophole, and that is what the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers are trying to do with their proposed rule clarifying the scope of the Clean Water Act.

Let's be clear: The EPA and the Corps of Engineers are acting within the authority granted them by Congress under the Clean Water Act to legally clarify the statute's jurisdiction. This clarity is desperately needed, especially in the Great Lakes Basin. Half the streams in the Greats Lakes States lack clear water protection simply because they do not all flow all year.

This lack of protection has taken its toll, slowing permitting decisions for responsible development and reducing protections for drinking water supplies and critical habitats. The EPA and Army Corps' proposed rule would restore Clean Water Act protections to wetlands and tributary streams because the science clearly shows that these water bodies are connected.

Before proposing its rule, the EPA analyzed more than 1,000 peer- reviewed scientific articles, and the findings are irrefutable. Tributary streams and wetlands are clearly connected to downstream waters. Pollution is carried down the river, polluting bigger and bigger waterways.

Healthy wetlands improve water quality by filtering polluted runoff from farm fields and city streets that otherwise would flow into rivers, streams, and great water bodies across the country. Wetlands and tributaries provide vital habitat to wildlife, waterfowl and fish, reduce flooding, and replenish groundwater supplies.

We cannot protect and restore the Great Lakes and our drinking water supplies without first protecting and restoring the wetlands and upstream waters that feed into them. Congress passed the Clean Water Act with the intention of protecting our waterways, and that is what it did for almost 30 years. Now this administration is trying to bring back these protections this House has undermined.

Let's not make the same mistake twice. Let's let the experts do their job.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the long and distinguished career of Bruce Nesbitt. Fifty years ago, Mr. Nesbitt founded Orion Industries in his parent's basement on the Northwest side of Chicago by first applying coating to race car engine parts. He convinced any friends, relatives, and initial suppliers that would listen to his sales pitch to buy stock in his coating company. Today, Orion Industries applies Teflon coating on consumer bake ware, automotive, and industrial products and has grown from 3 employees to 138. Orion Industries continues to grow and create jobs in Chicago and recently announced relocating to a larger facility in the Fifth District to accommodate its booming production. Needless to say, those initial shareholders that believed in Bruce made a handsome return on their investment in what is now a leader in the industrial coatings industry.

The success of Orion Industries is due to the entrepreneurial creativity and work ethic of its founder who can often be found at his plant's in-house laboratory. Mr. Nesbitt was educated in public high schools and colleges on the Northwest side of Chicago. Even though he never received a college degree, Mr. Nesbitt holds 31 U.S. Patents and has 9 pending, earning him membership in the Chicago Entrepreneurial Hall of Fame. Under Mr. Nesbitt's leadership, Orion Industries was awarded the DuPont Plunkett Award for Industrial Innovation this past year. Amidst all these titles and distinctions, Mr. Nesbitt was also given the unofficial title of CTO, ``Chief Tinkerologist'' by his employees at Orion Industries. Best of all, Bruce remains a hardworking and humble ``Chicago guy'' amidst all his success.

Bruce would be the first to tell you that his family is his first priority, and they have provided support for all of his activities. His family includes his two daughters; Amber, her husband Ben Wood and their two children, Brecon Michael and newborn, Gwyneth Adele, and Greer and her husband, William Swearingen.

He and Diane Jacobson continue to reside in Chicago and support numerous local charities and civic organizations like the Time Line Theatre and Adaptive Adventures.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Bruce Nesbitt and Orion Industries on the 50th anniversary of the company's founding. It is always encouraging to see someone follow their passion, open a successful business, and give back to their community. I wish Mr. Nesbitt and all the employees at Orion Industries the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, as the House uses what little legislative time is left in the year to sue the President, I am reminded of what Benjamin Disraeli once said: ``How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct.'' That is the reason why the American public thinks that the lawsuit against the President of the United States is a political stunt, because it is a political stunt.

The majority argues that the President's executive actions give them no choice but to sue the President; that it is the legislative branch's job to defend against the executive branch's supposed overreaches.

But I will tell you what the job of the legislature is. The job of the legislature is to pass legislation.

For 112 Congresses before this one, the fight over the separation of powers has endured, with each Congress before us using the powers allocated to it in our Constitution to pass legislation to counter the actions of the President.

It is not a unique idea: You don't like the job the President is doing? Well, then let's do our job. You don't like the President's policy? Well, then let's enact some policies of our own. Rather than litigating, we should be legislating.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been so busy trying to prevent the President from doing his job, they have forgotten to do their own. For years, their number one legislative priority was making President Obama a one-term President, to discredit him, to delegitimize him. Time and time again, with every issue, from extending unemployment insurance to comprehensive immigration reform to climate change, to name a few, this Congress has punted the ball. Instead of finding the courage to tackle the tough issues the American people are

begging us to take on, we have retreated.

For many issues, we even refuse to allow a simple up-or-down vote on the floor. We are afraid that if we actually allowed a vote, we might actually pass something.

This Congress makes Truman's ``do-nothing Congress'' seem downright busy. No wonder why our approval numbers are so low. It is ironic that a Congress that refuses to get anything done has the audacity to accuse the President of getting too much done.

The President isn't taking our power away from us. We have abdicated it to him.

Since George Washington, our Presidents have used executive actions to get things done, yet the majority argues that this President is the exception to the rule. President Obama may be the exception, but not in the way that they think. Out of the last 10 Presidents, President Obama has signed the least number of executive orders, on average, per year. So far, the President has even signed half as many as President Reagan did.

Yet despite this, let's remember what the President has been able to accomplish over the last 6 years. President Obama brought our economy back from the brink of depression, lowering unemployment from 10 percent in 2009 to 6.1 percent today. We have had 52 straight months of private sector job growth, with the last month being the fifth month in a row of adding 200,000 jobs or more to the economy.

The President passed health care reform, achieving what every President since Teddy Roosevelt has tried and failed to do. Now millions of Americans who were previously barred from health insurance coverage because of preexisting conditions or because they simply could not afford it can access the care they desperately need.

And the President has taken unprecedented action to protect our environment. He has proposed the toughest fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles in U.S. history, put a plan in place to cut carbon pollution from new and existing power plants, and significantly increased production of renewable energy.

In 6 years, President Obama has accomplished more than many who have come before him, despite a do-nothing Congress whose stated mission has been obstruction.

Mr. Speaker, Malcolm X used to say that if you have no critics, you likely have no successes.

The intent of the majority's lawsuit may be to spotlight the President's critics, but I am confident that what it will actually do is prove his successes.

Mr. Speaker, one of the founding principles of our republic is equal justice under the law. But the promise of justice for all is an empty one without access to legal assistance. I rise today to honor the Legal Services Corporation, which for 40 years has played a vital role in ensuring all Americans, regardless of income, have proper representation in court.

Studies consistently show that in contested matters in court involving fundamental issues like housing, education and family law, the outcome of the case often turns on whether one has legal representation. And with the growing number of Americans eligible for legal assistance, the need for the Legal Services Corporation has never been greater. That is why it is so important that Congress provides them with the funding they need to get the job done. Thank you to the Legal Services Corporation and LSC-funded attorneys for the vital work they do every day on behalf of Americans who need qualified counsel.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my deep sympathy for all of those affected by the tragedy of Flight MH-17. It is unthinkable that a commercial airliner would ever be shot down by a surface-to-air missile, and yet, that is exactly what happened in the part of Ukraine controlled by Russian separatists.

The evidence seems to point to one perpetrator, one party intent on inflicting pain and suffering upon the innocent.

The fire of Ukraine's crisis has undoubtedly been fueled by Russia and its operatives. So let this senseless tragedy serve as a wake-up call to the international community.

This conflict could end today. It is in Mr. Putin's hands. But until then, I support the sanctions that the United States has already levied against Russia and stand strongly with the people of Ukraine in their struggle for autonomy and sovereignty.

My heart will forever go out to all those lost in this horrific act of war and the loved ones they leave behind.

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped we would have settled this debate decades ago. Yet here we are in 2014, and we are still arguing over access to birth control for women.

According to the five-man Supreme Court majority in the Hobby Lobby case, it wasn't enough for politicians to have a say in women's access to health care. Apparently, their employers should have a say, too. This decision is yet another example of the constitutional rights of individual Americans being trumped by the apparent rights of corporations. So a woman is entitled to her own religious beliefs as long as they don't get in the way of the religious beliefs of the corporation she works for.

The Court's ruling in Hobby Lobby allows for for-profit companies to interfere with the personal health decisions of their employees, opening the door for employers to discriminate against women who are simply seeking practical medical care.

Justice Ginsburg said it best in her scathing dissent: ``The Court has ventured into a minefield.'' Now it is up to Congress to find a way out.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of summer food security programs for America's children because, unlike Congress, hunger doesn't take a summer vacation.

Today, in the United States, food insecurity is persistent and rampant. We are one of the richest and most powerful Nations in the world, yet one in five households with children experience food insecurity each year.

Any American suffering from hunger is cause for concern, but it is especially troubling to think that so many American children lying in bed at night are struggling to sleep because they are hungry.

Thankfully, most children in America who aren't able to get adequate sustenance at home are provided meals for free or at a reduced rate during the school year. In fact, 21 million children nationwide rely on free or reduced-price meals during the school year, and 825,000 of those children are from my State of Illinois.

But while we have worked hard to ensure our children are fed during the school year, we often overlook the fact that many of these same children lack access to these meals during the summer months. Of the many children who receive free or reduced-price lunches during the school year, only 14 percent currently access meals during the summer. This is why the USDA's Summer Food Service Program is so important.

As Members of Congress, it is imperative that we support and promote these programs so families who need help during the summer months can take advantage of them.

Recently, I had the opportunity to visit a Summer Food Service Program in my district with the Greater Chicago Food Depository and No Kid Hungry Illinois. I was able to see firsthand how the program is benefiting children in Illinois and across the country. These programs are working and making a positive difference for our local families.

Take, for example, the story of Maria and her husband from Chicago Heights. Maria works part-time at a laundromat while her husband works full-time in a lumberyard. These two hardworking Americans are doing all they can to provide for their children. But times are still tough and food is more and more expensive. To help pick up the slack, Maria and her children visit the Lunch Bus.

The Lunch Bus is a great program that not only provides lunch for low-income children during the summer, but also provides a safe place for those children to play and meet other kids. There are families all over America like Maria's family that work hard every day to provide for their children; but oftentimes, despite their hard work, difficult circumstances cause them to come just short.

We in this Congress have a responsibility to stand up for these hardworking families and to ensure no child in America goes to bed hungry. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of the bipartisan Summer Meals Act, which will expand the USDA summer nutrition program to help more children across this country access quality meals during the summer months.

Rather than slashing these funds, we need to focus on positive steps we can take to end hunger across the country. The best way we can reduce the amount of Federal Government spending on food nutrition programs is by supporting legislation that creates jobs and helps families earn a living wage.

Moving forward, it is incumbent on all of us to promote summer food nutrition programs and to ensure that the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which expires next year, is reauthorized at sufficient levels.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, hunger does not take a summer break, and neither should we when it comes to taking care of America's children.

I will do all I can to make sure these children have access to nutritious meals all year round, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the National Gay Blood Drive, because I know that being gay does not implicitly make someone an unsafe blood donor.

Our current FDA policy paints all gay and bisexual men with the same brush, banning them for life based solely on orientation instead of focusing on actual risky behavior.

This Friday, at National Gay Blood Drives in 61 cities across our country,

gay and bisexual men will stand with straight allies to call for an end to this discriminatory policy.

Implemented in 1983 during the height of the HIV crisis, the outdated policy is based on unjustifiable fear and bigotry instead of science and facts. But it is 2014. We have advanced blood screening and we know much more about how HIV is transmitted. We need a revised policy to match--a revision blood donation agencies support. We can no longer treat gay and bisexual men as second-class citizens or turn away healthy would-be donors who could be providing lifesaving blood.

I urge all my colleagues to support the National Gay Blood Drive and help America move one step closer to true equality for all.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is time we take a smarter approach to our nuclear weapons strategy.

I rise today to offer a reasonable amendment that ensures that taxpayer dollars are not wasted on a weapon that the Pentagon is not even sure we will have the capability to use. My amendment simply cuts the extra $7.6 million above what the NNSA has requested for the next generation long-range cruise missile's nuclear warhead.

This is a modest cut, one that allows the program to move forward at the requested level of $9.4 million. The reason behind the cut is clear: this funding is for the development of a warhead to be used on a cruise missile that the Pentagon has yet to approve. Given this, there is simply no reason for the NNSA to rush forward with investments on this warhead. And Congress definitely shouldn't be spending taxpayer dollars beyond the NNSA's request to do so.

To get a better idea of what we are spending our constituents' money on, let's walk through this program. This warhead is being developed for the next generation long-range cruise missile. The weapon it will replace, the air-launched cruise missile, isn't being phased out until the 2030s.

This year, the Pentagon delayed the development of this new cruise missile by 3 more years and has yet to set exact requirements for the missile or necessary warhead.

Despite there being no rush, this bill pushes extra money into developing that warhead. There are also serious questions about whether we will even need these new cruise missiles, given the technological advances we have already made.

The next generation long-range bombers will be big, expensive stealth bombers able to penetrate enemy airspace to drop their bombs without being detected. We are spending a small fortune on the B-61 bomb life extension for that advanced capability.

The B-2 stealth bomber, which this next-generation bomber will replace, doesn't carry a cruise missile. Advanced American stealth bombers don't need the capability to send a cruise missile from a bomber 1,000 miles away. We pay for very expensive submarines and very expensive ICBMs for that capability.

So ask yourselves: Should we be adding money above the request for a warhead that goes on a missile that the Pentagon doesn't even know it wants and one we probably don't even need?

Over the next few years, we will be spending billions on our nuclear weapons budget alone. Let me name a few of the things we need to pay for all at the same time:

The many NNSA life extension programs, such as the increasingly costly B-61 program; 100 next generation long-range bombers; ICBM refurbishment and possibly the next generation of ICBMs; plus 12 nuclear-armed Ohio-class replacement submarines.

At a time when we have so many other important projects at both the Pentagon and at the NNSA, the dollars and manpower spent on refurbishing this warhead for a cruise missile that does not yet exist are dollars and manpower the Pentagon and the NNSA could be using on bombers, subs, or even soldiers.

That is why I ask my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment to take an important step towards a more reasonable, sensible nuclear weapons strategy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chairman, the NNSA has a tough enough job as it is developing nuclear weapons and handling and restoring the weapons that we already have. We have to make choices here. This is a weapon that won't be needed until 2030, if it is needed at all. They don't need additional money beyond that which is requested.

I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.