Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, just days before the United States Government reaches its statutory borrowing limit, let's be clear: this is not new spending. This is agreeing to pay the bills we've already accrued. Senator Alan Simpson said it best:

If you're a real conservative, an honest conservative

without hypocrisy, you'd want to pay your debt.

Eight days ago, a minority faction of the Congress chose to shut down the Federal Government. This was touching the fire. To refuse to lift the debt ceiling is to place our entire hand into the fire. A Reagan economist called this debate ``playing with matches around gasoline.'' Yes, that's the same President Ronald Reagan who raised the debt ceiling 18 times without the accompanying brinksmanship. And let's remember, during the 2011 debt ceiling debate, the mere threat of a default scared the markets and drove up interest rates. Retirees lost $800 billion in assets as markets tumbled. Home buyers lost $100 a month as rates spiked. The harm this time could be much worse.

We need to pay our bills so we can start solving the real problems facing this country rather than fixing ones we caused ourselves. And, Mr. Speaker, what is most extraordinary about this fiasco is this: I thought budget negotiations were supposed to be about funding levels, but this Nation's most contentious budget fight in nearly 20 years isn't about funding levels at all; it's about using the budget as leverage to repeal or delay an existing law.

Despite the destructive effects of sequestration, in an effort to compromise, we gave in to the demands to the majority and accepted their $986 billion spending limit. Just put this into context. The $986 billion level is 17 percent below fiscal year 2010 spending and 10 percent less than the original Ryan budget. It is below Simpson-Bowles. If that's not compromise, I don't know what is. Those on the other side of this aisle don't know how to take ``yes'' for an answer. We agreed to deeply slash government spending. Please accept a victory and restart the government so we can get back to the real work of this body.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for reason. No longer can we afford to allow a small segment of this Congress to drive the debate. It's not just the tail wagging the dog, it is the tip of the dog's tail wagging the entire body politic.

The time has come for those in the middle to come together and take back the wheel from those intent on crashing this Congress into a ditch.

As I stand here today, the government of the United States is shuttered, shut down by nothing more than brinksmanship.

Small business loans are not being processed. The Centers for Disease Control flu prevention program is being halted, and the National Institutes of Health is no longer accepting kids into a cancer research program. Some food safety operations have ceased, and cleanup at 600 toxic waste sites has been suspended.

It wasn't always this way though. There was a time when we had regular order. There was a time when budgets were proposed, funding levels and priorities were debated, differences were hashed out, and bills were passed to fund the government.

And even when regular order broke down, we were always able to at least pass a continuing resolution to continue funding the government. Not this time.

This time, an effort to repeal a law that was passed by both houses, signed by the President, approved by the Supreme Court, has shanghaied all Federal spending.

Many across the aisle acknowledge how harmful and irresponsible such a plan is. Senator McCain said, ``In the United States Senate, we will not repeal or defund ObamaCare. And to think we can is not rational.''

Budget Chairman Paul Ryan said, ``We have to stay on the right side of public opinion. Shutting down the government puts us on the wrong side.''

My colleague, Senator Kirk said, ``Let's not shut down the government just because you don't get everything you want.''

The list goes on and on. Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many more all oppose efforts to shut the Federal Government. Yet, we continue down this dangerous path.

When I first came to this Congress, Congressman Kirk, now Senator Kirk, told me that everything that gets done here gets done in the middle. Now is the time for the reasonable middle to come together and reject the strategy that says, ``If I can't win, I'll just kick the ball in the woods.''

Sorry, Seth.

Not only is shutting down the government harmful to my constituents, businesses, and the economy, it doesn't solve the problem. It doesn't address the budget deficit.

If we really want to get our fiscal house in order, let's fund the government and bring back a balanced, big, bipartisan deficit deal to the floor. We did it before and we can do it again.

I, along with only 37 colleagues, voted for the Cooper-LaTourette budget, which mirrored the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles plan.

Where were those so concerned with the debt then?

If the fiscal watchdogs on the other side of the aisle really want to solve our budget woes, let's get together on a big budget deal, and let's do it now, because every day we waste in this useless limbo land is one less day we have to address the very real and very harmful problems facing this country.

We have got to pass comprehensive immigration reform, a farm bill, an infrastructure funding bill, a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, reasonable gun reforms, tax reform, and numerous other much-needed legislation.

But without doing the basic work of Congress, like passing a budget, we can't address the real issues facing us. As long as we continue to look in the rearview mirror at a law passed 3 years ago, approved by the Supreme Court, we will fail to navigate the real obstacles before us.

We need to keep our eyes on the road, and come together to solve the real challenges that lie ahead.

Mr. Speaker, lately, the people's House, this House of Representatives, has been called a lot of other things--dysfunctional, unpopular, and gridlocked--but one word, inspired by Charles Dickens, seems particularly fitting these days: bleak.

In 1852, Charles Dickens wrote the novel ``Bleak House'' about the dismal failures of the British judicial system. The title ``Bleak House'' refers to the main courthouse, above which reads the warning:

Suffer any wrong that can be done you rather than come

here.

Given the recent inaction, and perhaps dysfunction, I feel a similar moniker may need to be placed above our own door.

This body has reached a point where our inaction is no longer harmless. Our inability to act and govern is having real and harmful effects. We are on the verge of causing great suffering.

Take, for example, health care. We passed health care reform 3 years ago. While everyone does not like all of its provisions, the fact is it's the law of the land. It's not going away. But rather than working together to improve the bill, as has been done with every other major piece of legislation, such as Medicare part D, many in this House are not only refusing to make adjustments; they are trying to stop its implementation altogether. There are efforts under way to dissuade young people from signing up for insurance, to prevent assisters from helping folks access insurance, and to scare seniors. Rather than coming together to improve our health care system, the dysfunction of this body is actually harming the health and well-being of millions of people.

Take the inability to pass a continuing resolution as another example of how the gridlock of this body is hurting our country. What was once a routine act of debating funding levels and priorities and passing a budget has devolved into a hijacking of government and the funding of health care. This is a game of chicken that risks shutting down the entire government and injuring millions of Americans.

Leaders on the other side of the aisle understand the devastating effect of such a shutdown. Speaker John Boehner said in April 2011:

If you shut down the government, it'll end up costing more

than you'll save because you interrupt contracts.

Yet despite such warnings, we continue to risk a deeply damaging government shutdown.

Finally, efforts to increase the debt limit should serve as another sober reminder of how dysfunctional and harmful this body has become. The debt limit has been raised 78 times, including 49 times by Republican Presidents and 29 times by Democratic Presidents. Once again, what was once standard operating procedure has become a hostage for extreme positions.

Many in this House are willing to risk the full faith and credit of the United States in order to push their extremism. Defaulting on our debt would cause irreparable damage to our recovery and risk sending us back into recession. As George W. Bush's chief economic adviser, Keith Hennessey, put it:

Not raising the debt limit could lead to ``a catastrophic

event.''

Still, we continue down this dangerous path.

And these are just a few of the most topical examples. The list of items we are unable to tackle goes on and on: tax reform, entitlement reform, reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, transportation and infrastructure, immigration reform, postal reform, a decent farm bill, and commonsense gun violence legislation. We are indeed making Truman's do-nothing Congress look positively busy.

Yesterday, Senator Cruz quoted Dr. Seuss. Today, I would like to do the same. But I am drawing from a different Seuss tale, the story of ``The Zax.'' For those not familiar, the Zax is about two Zaxes going two different directions and who meet face-to-face. Each Zax refuses to go any direction but the direction it was headed. The Zaxes stand so long that a highway overpass is built over them, and the story ends with each Zax still standing there ``unbudged in their tracks.''

From Dickens to Seuss, great writers can teach us and warn us about the dangers of obstinacy and intransigence. Refusing to act has surely led us to a very bleak place indeed. Let's not end up like the Zaxes, ``unbudged in our tracks,'' and unable to tackle the great challenges of our time.

Mr. Chairman, I became a member of the Appropriations Committee this Congress to make the tough funding choices that determine our national priorities, but this year's budget allocations have taken those choices away from us.

This bill is being touted as a budgetary tradeoff, but there are no tradeoffs in this bill. There are only cuts. Investments in our infrastructure are needed more than ever. Yet this bill makes some of the most significant cuts to vital transportation programs in decades.

We all remember the Recovery Act. An interesting fact about the Recovery Act is about 6 or 7 percent of that bill dealt with infrastructure, but that 6 or 7 percent of that bill created about two- thirds of the jobs that the act created.

Unfortunately, in this bill there's no funding for TIGER grants, which fund infrastructure projects like the Elgin-O'Hare Western Access Project in my district, and no funding for Core Capacity Grants to fund desperately needed improvements to transit systems like the Chicago Transit Authority. Instead of increasing safety and capacity in air travel, we're slashing funding to the FAA's air traffic control modernization program. Instead of expanding rail service, we're cutting Amtrak's capital program by 37 percent.

The housing numbers are even worse. This bill cuts funding to housing programs that not only work but have a proven track record of saving the taxpayer money. There's no funding for the Choice Neighborhoods program, which helps communities revitalize distressed neighborhoods. There are significant cuts to the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program, which is used to house some of the most vulnerable among us, and also another program which saves money. Community Development Block Grants, used by communities across the country, have been cut in half and are at their lowest levels since the Ford administration.

We're cutting investments in our future and essential services to those in need to pay for bloated defense spending the Pentagon often itself says it doesn't need. In the final analysis, countries that succeed invest in research, education, and infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, we're cutting all three.

I joined this committee to make the smart funding choices that will propel our Nation forward, but this bill does just the opposite. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, we can do better. When it comes to legislatively establishing a national energy policy to address climate change, we can and must do better. But we're not. As Members of this body, we're not doing anything. Why?

We are hamstrung by our inability to work together to do great, important, vital things here in this Chamber: things like addressing our national debt, tackling comprehensive immigration reform, and to ever, in the history of this Nation, establish a national energy plan. The only way forward is to establish a national energy plan to address climate change, something this great Nation has always lacked, and to work with public and private entities alike to get this done.

For the climate doubters out there who still question climate change, I remind them that over 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies have said that climate change is real and that man contributes significantly to it. And zero scientific peer-reviewed studies have said the opposite.

So we must craft a plan that focuses on working with the business community hand-in-hand to be competitive internationally. We must go toe-to-toe with India and China. We must craft a plan that focuses on public transportation and green infrastructure. We must pass a multiyear transportation bill. We must focus on conservation, as

demonstrated so adeptly by our own President's increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and his call to action on climate just a few weeks ago. Above all, we must compromise and work together and be inventive and creative.

I'm not calling on the President for another executive order. I'm not calling on the Senate to move one more piecemeal energy bill that lies holed up in committee. I'm calling on this House.

I know what the critics will say, and my argument is the same as theirs: it's about jobs. Setting standards for carbon-pollution limits for coal plants under the Clean Air Act will not shutter all U.S. plants. On the contrary, it will set achievable standards for existing plants until we can use a patchwork solution to transition to cleaner sources.

Still others will say the Clean Air Act is a draconian doctrine that kills job, slows down American progress, and sets us back as a technology-advanced Nation. Right? Wrong. The Clean Air Act has been the impetus for the only existing technologies that currently exist for power plants, having been required to reduce emittance by 90 percent by 2015. Without such directives coming out of the EPA over the past 40 years, such advancements by polluting power plants would never have been voluntarily made.

We can transition with incentives and a patchwork approach--and compromise.

Several weeks ago, when the President made a major drive on combating climate change, it's too bad he had to bypass Congress to do it. But as a Member of this body, I don't blame him. I would love to say we here in this Chamber would be part of the solution, but I understand why he believes we cannot.

Since Congress has abdicated its desire to pass climate legislation, natural gas has become a panacea for fossil fuel. It's dirt cheap and ``cleaner,'' they say. But it's brought about a renaissance of dirty extraction like hydrofracking or extracting gas from shale in an oftentimes negligent and toxic manner.

Also, our nuclear energy can't compete with China's solar energy. China provided over half the solar panel cells in the U.S. That's over $3.1 billion within our domestic market--$3.1 billion we could be capitalizing on, infusing small and mid-sized solar companies across the country, creating and retaining green jobs.

Our attempt to deregulate or fight rules promulgated from the EPA isn't working either. Take the bill we're considering this week, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, which would set up a separate management stream which would bypass the EPA. Per the Congressional Research Service, this standard, as established by the bill, pays no mind to public health. The CRS memo, written at the request of the House and Energy and Commerce Committee states:

This bill fails to establish minimum national safeguards,

fails to establish Federal backstop authority, fails to

define what facility the bill applies to, fails to contain

any minimum Federal requirement to protect health and the

environment.

It's time this body became a relevant advocate and participant in solving the great questions that plague our Nation today before we lose a chance to have a tomorrow.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It simply reduces the number of deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear missiles, by a third, from 450 to 300.

We are in the midst of an extraordinary budget crisis. We are facing unsustainable debt. Yet we continue to spend approximately $50 billion to $55 billion annually to maintain and even grow a nuclear arsenal and associated programs designed for a Cold War that no longer exists.

Russia is no longer the existential threat it once was, and we are working closely with Russian leaders to reduce our nuclear arsenals together. While other nations, such as China, have some nuclear weapons, their stockpiles pale in comparison. China has no more than 50 to 75 single warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles.

We can significantly reduce our nuclear arsenal of 1,700 and still maintain a robust military edge over any rival. As we look to reduce our nuclear stockpile, we should be strategic and make targeted cuts.

According to a recent report issued by General James Cartwright, retired vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former commander of U.S. nuclear forces; Secretary Chuck Hagel; and a number of other military and foreign experts, all land-based ICBMs could be eliminated. Let me take a moment to repeat that. The former commander of all U.S. nuclear forces thinks we don't need any ICBMs--none. According to the report:

The U.S. ICBM force has lost its central utility.

The report outlines four key reasons ICBMs should be eliminated:

First, ``Direct wartime nuclear operations against Russia alone, were Cold War scenarios that are no longer plausible.''

Second, flight paths over all land-based ICBMs to any potential adversaries--Iran, North Korea, China--would have to travel through Russian air space. This could trigger ``confusing Russia, and triggering nuclear retaliation.''

Third, ``U.S. Trident submarines and B-2 strategic bombers can deliver nuclear weapons to virtually any point on the Earth.''

Fourth, ``ICBMs in fixed silos are inherently targetable.''

Once again, these are not my assessments, nor the assessments of some anti-nuclear groups. These are the assessments of General Cartwright, the retired vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former commander of U.S. nuclear forces; Richard Burt, a former chief nuclear arms negotiator; Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, former Ambassador to Russia, Thomas Pickering; and General John Sheehan, a former senior NATO official.

The former commander of U.S. nuclear forces has issued his support for the elimination of ICBMs.

This amendment merely calls for a reduction by one-third. We have limited resources, and that means we have to make choices. As we look to cut spending, let's cut military investments that do nothing to keep us safe in today's threat environment, such as ICBMs.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining.

Let me just say that I've been here 4 years now, and I recognize what the Department of Defense is--it is our jobs program.

I respect my colleagues for defending jobs in their districts, but this isn't about national security--it's about job maintenance, which is not what this is supposed to be about. If we're going to spend money in creating jobs, I want to build bridges and schools and transit systems.

I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my colleague from New York, Representative Tim Bishop, to honor the memory of Robert D. Getzoff. Rob was a dedicated brother, a beloved son, a caring uncle, and a fiercely loyal friend.

To his many friends, he was one of the warmest, brightest, and funniest people on Capitol Hill. Though he was a self-described ``Jewish rocker from Philadelphia,'' Rob was a friend of the Illinois Fifth District, having worked for my predecessor, then Congressman Rahm Emanuel, for four years.

Rob served as Congressman Emanuel's Legislative Counsel for the Budget, Financial Services and Ways and Means Committees--a full plate of challenging policy responsibilities and assignments that Rob fulfilled with great skill and success. No one loved it more and worked harder than Rob Getzoff. In an office that prided itself on long hours, Rob made a point of being the first person in the office in the morning, and on many nights he was the last to leave. He served his country and tackled complex challenges and tight deadlines with intelligence and humor.

Rob began his Hill career in the office of his idol, Senator Ted Kennedy, and tackled every aspect of his Hill career with the passion and dedication to public service exemplified by the late Senator. Rob's impressive record of accomplishment was built on his distinguished academic credentials. He held a bachelor's degree from George Washington University, a law degree from Temple University, and an MBA from Georgetown University. In addition to his service on the Hill, he added to his impressive credentials by becoming an expert in financial services regulatory policy while working for industry leaders including Citigroup and Bank of New York Mellon.

Rob was a true policy wonk and a brilliant political strategist. He defended his views with passion whether he was trying to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to help low-income Americans, explaining the greatness of eighties hard rock, or the eating habits of Great Cats. He was unrelenting in pushing his colleagues to do the right thing, whether the question at hand was a pivotal vote or a quality timepiece. He left a legacy of legislative accomplishments including meaningful lobbying reform, janitors insurance, closing the corporate jet loophole, and reducing the size of the ``tax gap.'' He also played a pivotal role in drafting comprehensive tax reform legislation that made the tax code simpler and fairer for all Americans.

Rob was beloved by many who had the privilege to work with him and share his passion and dedication to work and friends. A legislative staff in a Congressional office is a small unit, and Rob was part of a family. That small group of people crammed into a not-so-

large shared space working long hours on difficult issues got to know each other about as well as you can with people assembled by someone else. In stressful moments full of ``pushback'' and ``red flags'', he could be counted on to pitch in to help, or simply remind his fellow staffers ``you love this song''.

Even after Rob left the Hill, everyone wanted to stay in touch with Rob, either through a ``pop-in'' to the Longworth office or to meet for a cup of coffee for some advice and a few laughs. He maintained his relationship with the Fifth District even after his former boss moved on to the White House, serving as a friend and mentor to my staff.

Rob brought that same joie de vivre to all of his work, on and off the Hill. It is no surprise that so many people in Washington and beyond have a story about Rob helping them out with a thorny issue, providing career advice or simply helping them during a challenging time. Rob will also be remembered by so many of us for how easy it was to become and stay good friends with him, and how we were frequently uplifted by his sense of humor, including his spot-on impressions, and his very infectious laugh.

Mr. Speaker, it's not often I find myself in the position of singing the praises of a Flyers fan, and while I'm still happy his team finished second in 2010, there's no question he's first in the hearts of his friends and family. A few years ago the derisive term ``little punk staffer'' became a badge of honor among the many who've toiled in tiny cramped spaces like 1319 Longworth. Rob was among the best little punk staffers this institution has ever seen.

He was taken from us prematurely, and so many people are devastated by this loss. But Rob wouldn't want us to be sad. He would say ``go out and enjoy your young life.'' He would want us to put on some Green Day, walk past the Capitol Dome and remember why we came to Washington in the first place. The best way to honor Rob is to do a great job while giving everything you have to some great friends. Rob, we miss you already.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that anyone is born with an inclination to hate, but sometimes, even in the year 2013, it's easy to forget.

Not one of us begins this life hating that which is different. Not one of us begins this life fearing those who are different from ourselves. As children, we recognize differences; we wonder about them and question why. But as children, we don't hate or fear. People must learn to hate. You've got to be taught to hate and fear, carefully taught.

In the second act of the great musical ``South Pacific,'' Lieutenant Joe Cable sings a song about racial prejudice, entitled, ``You've Got to Be Carefully Taught.'' The lyrics of the song confront prejudice at its core, explaining the simple truth that discrimination is not inherent; it's imposed--imposed by others who once had it imposed upon them in the vicious cycle of prejudice and fear.

One isn't born with an inherent aversion to those of a different skin tone. One has to be taught to fear a young, unarmed black man in a hoodie. One has to be taught to fear minorities voting. You've got to be carefully taught.

I also believe discrimination plays a role in opposition to same-sex marriage. One isn't born thinking gay people should be treated differently than straight people. One has to be taught to fear equality for all. You've got to be carefully taught.

Discrimination has played a role in our immigration policy from the late 19th century to today. But people aren't naturally hostile to those who speak a different language or come from a different place. They had to be taught to fear the dreamers who are American in all but citizenship or their parents who risked their lives to make a better life for their children. You've got to be carefully taught.

When ``South Pacific'' debuted in 1949, the song ``You've Got to Be Carefully Taught'' almost didn't make the cut. Rodgers and Hammerstein were told the song was too controversial, too preachy, too inappropriate for the musical stage.

The song was so controversial that some cities in the deep South would not allow the musical to be played on their stages. Lawmakers in Georgia even tried to outlaw such entertainment with one legislator arguing that a song justifying interracial marriage was implicitly a threat to the American way of life. But Rodgers and Hammerstein insisted the song be sung because it told the truth, and nothing combats fear better than the truth. ``South Pacific'' premiered more than a half century ago, yet its lessons are perhaps even more relevant today.

We have come a long way since the Jim Crow era, but the truth is that discrimination, while perhaps not as blatant, is alive and well. Despite all the progress we have made, we are still taught to be fearful of differences, to discriminate against those of a different race or gender or background or sexual orientation. We tragically, although sometimes unknowingly, allow that discrimination to influence our actions. It is those actions, whether on a street corner in Florida or here on the floor of the House of Representatives, that teach yet another generation to hate and fear.

As lawmakers, we have a responsibility to root out discrimination, to impart upon a new generation a philosophy of tolerance, and to embrace our differences. By confronting discrimination head on, we can finally stop the

vicious cycle of prejudice and fear. Nelson Mandela said it best:

People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate,

they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to

the human heart than its opposite.

You have to be carefully taught, Mr. Speaker. The teaching must begin in our hearts and with our children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 50th anniversary of James Darby and Patrick Bova. Since 1963, Jim and Patrick have been in a loving, devoted relationship and together they have fought to secure marriage equality in Illinois and to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve openly in the armed forces. I am proud to recognize this Chicago couple who have been at the forefront of the fight for equality in Illinois and across the country.

Jim was born and raised on the south side of Chicago, where he worked in the stockyards before enlisting in the Navy. He served four years during the Korean War as a Communications Technician Second Class. In this role, Jim worked as a cryptographer and Russian linguist and earned both the National Defense Service Medal and the Naval Occupation Service Medal.

Patrick grew up in Pennsylvania and attended Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. before moving to Chicago in 1960 to attend the University of Chicago Graduate School in Education.

After Jim's honorable discharge from the military, he met Patrick in Chicago on July 17, 1963. They have been in a committed relationship ever since. Jim spent a 29-year career as a teacher in the Chicago Public Schools where he was recognized in 1985 as the Outstanding Teacher of the Year. Patrick spent a career working at the National Opinion Research Center. When Illinois legalized same-sex civil unions in 2011, Jim and Patrick were among the first couples to share in that new form of partnership.

Together, Jim and Patrick have been working to ensure equality for all Americans serving in our armed forces. Jim founded the Chicago chapter of American Veterans for Equal Rights (AVER) in 1992 and served for many years on the organization's executive board. Jim and Patrick have attended every AVER conference since 1992 and fought together to end discrimination against gay men and lesbians serving in the United States Armed Forces and for the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Jim and Patrick are also active in the fight for marriage equality in Illinois. As the lead plaintiffs in Darby v. Orr, the case before the Illinois Supreme Court challenging the ban on marriage equality as unconstitutional, Jim's and Patrick's advocacy and testimony have been instrumental in the fight to bring equal rights to all citizens of Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognition of the 50th Anniversary of James Darby and Patrick Bova, a Chicago couple whose patriotic advocacy is improving the lives of gay and lesbian Americans in Illinois and across the country.

Mr. Speaker, entire neighborhoods in my city of Chicago are being torn apart by violence.

Last week, from Wednesday evening through Sunday evening, more than 70 people were shot in Chicago, 11 of whom died. Last year, over 500 people

were murdered in my city. Of these murders, 80 percent were gang related, and nearly 90 percent were at the hands of a gun. The numbers speak for themselves. The city of Chicago is facing an epidemic of violence and the reasons behind it are clear.

There are many ideas to solve this problem. One--rounding up 18,000 members of the Gangster Disciples--is simply not legally or financially feasible. What is feasible and a significant way to stop gun violence in my city is to stop the flow of illegal guns into Chicago.

One reason the violence is at record levels is because gang members have such easy access to illegal guns. It's time for the Federal Government to step in and do something about it.

Despite the city's tough gun laws, Chicago cops are recovering illegal guns at nine times the rate of their counterparts in New York City. That's nearly three times the number of weapons in a city one- third the size. These outrageous numbers call for nothing short of a Federal response. We need a renewed effort at the Federal level to prosecute gun traffickers who put illegal weapons in the hands of gang members. We need to give our law enforcement the tools they need to put these guys away.

Last year, Chicago ranked last among Federal jurisdictions and Federal gun prosecutions. This is simply unacceptable. Gun traffickers should know that if you traffic illegal weapons in the city of Chicago, you will be spending a long time in a Federal penitentiary. We can no longer let these criminals be charged with mere paperwork violations.

I welcome the nomination of Zachary Fardon as Chicago's new Federal prosecutor and urge him to prosecute more of these cases in Federal court. But to try more gun traffickers in Federal court, we need to give law enforcement the tools and funding they need to do so. That means finally passing a Federal law making gun trafficking illegal, with stiffer penalties for those who violate the law; that means increasing funding for Federal COPS grants to put more police on our streets instead of ignoring municipalities across the country that have been forced to cut their public safety budgets in these difficult economic times; and that means finally giving law enforcement the proper tools to go after corrupt gun dealers.

One percent of gun dealers are responsible for half the guns used in crimes in this country; yet current law foolishly limits things like inventory inspections. If law-abiding dealers reported inventories, the ATF would be much more effective in identifying lost and stolen weapons and combating corrupt gun dealers. That's why I introduced the TRACE Act this Congress, which would allow the ATF to require dealers to perform inventory checks and to report lost and stolen guns.

Mr. Speaker, people are being gunned down in my city every day. And while we continue to spend billions of dollars on nuclear weapons, tanks, and wars overseas, we're ignoring the gang war that is happening here at home. It's time for the Federal Government to step up to the challenge by stopping gun violence where it starts.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment with my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Our amendment is very straightforward. It simply cuts the $23.7 million from the B61 nuclear bomb not requested by the Department of Energy.

The National Nuclear Security Administration requested a 45 percent increase for a gold-plated upgrade plan for the B61 nuclear bomb. The committee provided the 45 percent increase in funding for a portion of the most expensive $10 billion upgrade plan. Then they provided an additional $23.7 million. Our amendment simply cuts these additional funds provided beyond what the agency requested.

Let me back up for a minute and explain what the $560 million in this bill is actually going to pay for. At a time when we are slashing funds for research at the NIH, failing to fund our crumbling infrastructure, and underinvesting in our children's education, we are increasing funding to keep hundreds of nuclear bombs in operation that we will never use.

The Cold War is over. Mr. Chairman, I thought today that I was back in a ``Twilight Zone'' episode--well, they're all like this--where you woke up in the morning and it is 50 years earlier--it's 1963. The Cold War is still raging.

Despite the fact that security experts of all political stripes, including conservatives Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, have called for deep cuts to our outsized nuclear stockpile.

General Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the ``military utility'' of the B61 is ``practically nil.''

As the U.S. and Russia work to reduce their nuclear stockpiles and shift funds to meet today's threats, the B61 in Europe will be one of the first weapons cut. Just last month in Berlin, the President stated that he wants to ``seek bold reductions in tactical weapons,'' aka the B61, in Europe.

My friends on the other side of the aisle claim they want to reduce the deficit. I agree, but if we are actually going to reduce spending, everything has to be on the table, including defense. This amendment is a tiny, thoughtful cut to an outsized nuclear budget for weapons that do little to keep us safe.

I hope my colleagues will join me in cutting funds not requested by the Department of Energy for nuclear upgrades not needed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I respect and have enjoyed this thoughtful debate that we've had in the last few minutes about this issue, particularly because it raises critical issues about our relationships with our NATO allies, but let's look at the big picture here.

The 2010 START Treaty with Russia, which passed the Senate in 2009, requires that Russia and the United States reduce their stockpiles to a maximum of 1,550 nuclear weapons by 2018. Let's look at what people are talking about now, people we respect.

General James Cartwright, retired vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former commander of the U.S. nuclear forces; Richard Burt, a former chief nuclear arms negotiator; Chuck Hagel, current Secretary of Defense; Thomas Pickering, a former ambassador to Russia; and General John J. Sheehan, a former senior NATO official, all issued a report noting that the United States' nuclear deterrence could be guaranteed with 900 nuclear weapons.

According to General Cartwright:

The world has changed, but the current arsenal carries the

baggage of the Cold War . . . What is it we're really trying

to deter? Our current arsenal does not address the threats of

the 21st century.

Let's talk about our NATO allies.

Steve Andreasen, the Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control on the National Security Council, recently argued:

Wouldn't it be more reassuring and wiser burden-sharing to

spend this money on weapons and capabilities that are more

relevant to the threats NATO faces today? Indeed, why would

allies be reassured by an investment that provides no real

military capability and no modicum of deterrence beyond that

already provided by the U.S., Britain, and France, each of

which has nuclear arsenals capable of obliterating any

adversary?

The biggest concerns for NATO right now include threats from Mali and Syria, nuclear proliferation and terrorism. The B61 can do nothing to address those threats.

I close by reminding us that four great American statesmen--George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn--argued for the elimination of these short-range nuclear weapons designed to be forward deployed--that is, the B61--in their landmark 2007 op-ed.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Quigley

Amendment No. 25: Page 29, line 21, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $23,700,000)''.

Page 60, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $23,700,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, after 23 NHL Playoff games, 10 overtimes, and 64 goals, the Chicago Blackhawks have won their second Stanley Cup in the last 4 years. Congratulations to the greatest team in hockey on being the 2013 Stanley Cup Champions.

The impressive regular season began with a record-breaking streak of 24 straight games with a point earned, and it ended with a Presidents' Trophy for the most points in a regular season. This success set the stage for an outstanding playoff run, a promise of things to come. The Hawks made good on that promise this week in one of the most incredible and improbable Stanley Cup Final games in NHL history.

Having already tamed the Minnesota Wild, taken down our archrival, the Detroit Red Wings, and dethroned the Los Angeles Kings, the Blackhawks grinded through the finals to one of the craziest and most exciting Stanley Cup wins ever witnessed.

To say this championship winning game was a nail-biter would be an understatement. The Blackhawks came from behind twice to overcome an amazing effort by the Boston Bruins, scoring two goals just 17 seconds apart in the final minute and a half of the game. Unbelievable goals scored by Bryan Bickell and Dave Bolland ensured their names will be inscribed forever in Blackhawk history books as well as on Lord Stanley's Cup.

With outstanding efforts by Captain Jonathan Toews; Conn Smythe winner, Buffalo native, Patrick Kane; the best defenseman in hockey, Duncan Keith; and, of course, the best goalie in the playoffs, Corey Crawford, the entire team made good on a promise that this Original Six team is a true legend to be reckoned with.

As I have mentioned before, hockey never left Chicago, but Rocky Wirtz brought it back. The owner of the Blackhawks has once again made our city proud.

The entire organization is the classiest in sports, the model in hockey. Led by John McDonough, Jay Blunk, Stan Bowman, and Coach Joel Quenneville, they have enshrined Chicago as a hockey town for the 21st century.

But the Blackhawks don't just unify our city, they also are committed to serving the community and making it better. Their StreetHawks program has worked to promote fitness and leadership skills to local youth through street hockey initiatives and community skating facilities.

Through the NHL's Hockey is for Everyone program, I've had the pleasure of working with the Hawks to expand hockey access to at-risk and LGBT youth; because no matter what your background, every child should have the opportunity to play the greatest sport in the world.

The Blackhawks have also been strong supporters of America's veterans and wounded warriors. Just this

year, I joined the Hawks and the USA Warriors veterans team for an outdoor hockey game at Soldier Field. The Hawks gave these vets--most of whom are Purple Heart recipients--a once-in-a-lifetime experience they will never forget.

And I suppose this is what the Hawks do best, provide their fans-- fans in Chicago and around the world--with memories they will never forget. I look forward to the new memories yet to be made during future Stanley Cup victories, games with Blackhawk players who are just kids right now with the memory of shots heard around the hockey world ringing through their heads.

Mr. Speaker, hockey is a special sport that brings people together, improves our communities, and, most importantly, makes people dream the impossible and do the improbable. The entire world saw that this week thanks to the 2013 Stanley Cup Champion Chicago Blackhawks.

Go Hawks. And as always, my kind of town, Chicago is.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1797 because we have been here before. Not less than a year ago, this body took up a very similar measure, and it failed. I hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting this attempt.

We cannot ban abortions after 20 weeks, first, because it's unconstitutional, and, second, because we cannot know the individual situation of every woman.

What if a woman gets cancer during her pregnancy?

What if she gets pre-eclampsia, which could cause seizures and kidney damage?

What if a woman's fetus is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality, making it unable to survive pregnancy or delivery?

Women and their families are often faced with impossibly difficult decisions, but they are their decisions to make, not ours.

Please vote ``no'' on this thoughtless bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my reintroduction of the State Ethics Law Protection Act. At a time when indictments and allegations of ethics violations of our elected leaders have become all too common, now more than ever we must use every tool at our disposal to fight corruption.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government is currently preventing numerous States from using one of the most important tools we have to fight cronyism, corruption, and waste. My home State of Illinois, which is no stranger to these issues, along with several other States around the country, has taken a stand against corruption by passing laws to eliminate shady pay-to-play contracting.

Pay-to-play politics is the practice of trading campaign contributions for lucrative government contracts. Pay-to-play practices erode the integrity of our public works projects and allow individuals to profit at the expense of American taxpayers. It is the most common example of government corruption.

Fortunately, it is also one of the easiest to solve. Anti-pay-to-play laws are designed to ensure that the competitive bidding process for government contracts is open and fair, not rigged or otherwise biased by lining the

campaign pockets of those responsible for awarding the contracts.

Amazingly, a loophole created in a previous administration in the Federal Highway Administration's contracting requirements is making it difficult, if not impossible, for States to implement these anticorruption laws. The Federal Government has threatened to cut off highway funds to any State that passes an anti-pay-to-play law. The Highway Administration's competitive bidding requirements have been interpreted to mean that States can't weed out corrupt contractors.

Clearly, this was not the intent of Congress when it passed these requirements. That is why I'm reintroducing the State Ethics Law Protection Act. This important measure simply amends the Federal Highway Administration's contracting requirements to allow States to pass these important laws. It ensures States that do pass anticorruption laws do not face financial penalties for doing so.

It is time for us to make it clear that Congress supports the right of States to fight corruption as they see fit. States have the right to ensure their contracting conforms to the highest ethical standards and offers the best value to taxpayers. It is not the Federal Highway Administration's place to second-guess a State on how to best ethically award contracts. States like Connecticut, New Jersey, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky have all passed laws like Illinois to root out this kind of blatant corruption.

These States should be applauded, not punished, for doing the right thing. By amending the Federal Highway Administration's contracting requirements, we can ensure that States have every tool at their disposal to encourage transparency and accountability. Our States have shown they are ready to reform. It is now our duty to ensure they have the ability to implement these reforms.

I am often asked what the true cost of corruption is. I will tell you, in my view, coming from Illinois, it is the loss of the public's trust. We cannot lead without this trust. And at this critical juncture, we must do all we can to restore trust and inspire the confidence of people across this country.