Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the falsely named Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, or PRENDA. This might be one of the most disingenuous bills to ever come to the floor of the House. The authors of this bill are talking out of both sides of their mouth. Today, I want to set the record straight.

In one breath, the proponents of this bill say they are protecting female fetuses by preventing abortions based on sex and that we must pass this bill to protect women everywhere and show that girls are as valid as boys. Yet, just last week, these same Members obstructed the passage of an expanded Violence Against Women Act that would have protected all victims of violence.

The same Members who today espouse equality for women voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which will help combat the discrimination against women that keeps them earning 77 cents for every dollar that men earn.

The same Members who today talk about protecting female babies continue to vote to gut the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which will be used to provide lifesaving breast and cervical cancer screenings to millions of the very women PRENDA's proponents claim to care so much about.

Here's the truth: this is not about women's equality. PRENDA is simply another attempt by choice opponents to obstruct women's access to reproductive health care.

I agree with the bill's proponents that abortions based on sex are a problem around the world, and I agree that we must take action to stop these abusive practices both at home and around the world. But let me be clear that this bill will not prevent sex-selective abortions.

Here's why:

First, criminalizing such practices simply will not work. Banning sex-selective abortions has already been tried in various countries around the world, and what expert agencies such as the World Health Organization--which operate in these countries--have found is that these bans don't prevent abortions. Rather, they simply result ``in a greater demand for clandestine procedures which fall outside regulations, protocols, and monitoring and basic safety.'' These restrictions serve only to drive these procedures underground, making them less safe. Our own history proves this point;

Second, criminalization of sex-selective abortions would force physicians to question women about their reasons for seeking abortion. It would likely compel physicians to target certain groups of women from cultures where sex-selection abortion is more prevalent. To avoid liability, physicians may even cease providing such care to entire groups of women simply because of their race. This bill would promote racial profiling and discrimination;

Additionally, targeting such motivations in practice would be nearly impossible. According, to an analysis by the World Health Organization and four other U.N. agencies, ``prosecuting offenders is practically impossible.'' And, further, ``proving that a particular abortion was sex selective is equally difficult.''

These expert international organizations do offer a viable solution to address this issue, a solution unmentioned in H.R. 3541. Address the root causes which drive individuals to prefer sons over daughters. The United Nations, through its work in nations where sex selection is prevalent, has stated that the most effective way to address this son preference is by fighting the root economic, social, and cultural causes of sex inequality.

South Korea successfully lowered its male-to-female ratio from 116 boys for every 100 girls in the nineties to 107 boys per 100 girls in 2007. They did this by passing laws to improve the legal status of women and by implementing a public education campaign emphasizing the importance of women.

If we're going to consider this bill, let's be honest about it. Its supporters are not promoting women's equality, and they are not serious about preventing sex-selective abortions. If they were, they would be promoting programs to empower women and girls to combat son preference. Instead, they are criminalizing physicians, profiling cultural groups, and driving abortion services underground. The truth is that this bill is another attempt to restrict women's reproductive health care wrapped in the rhetoric of women's rights.

Don't be fooled by PRENDA. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the World War II veterans who traveled to Washington, D.C. on May 23, 2012 with Honor Flight Chicago, a program that provides World War II veterans the opportunity to visit the World War II Memorial on The National Mall in Washington, D.C. This memorial was built to

honor their courage and service to their country.

The American Veteran is one of our greatest treasures. The Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen who traveled here on May 23 answered our nation's call to service during one of its greatest times of need. From the European Campaign to the Pacific Asian Theatre to the African Theater, these brave Americans risked life and limb, gave service and sacrificed much, all while embodying what it is to be a hero. We owe them more gratitude than can ever be expressed.

I welcome these brave veterans to Washington and to their memorial. I am proud to submit the names of these men and women for all to see, hear, and recognize, and I call on my colleagues to rise and join me in expressing gratitude.

Robert Agramonte, Anthony P. Barrett, Raymond J. Bayster, Kenneth I. Beardsley, Howard B. Blumenthal, William Brandfon, Robert Chapman Buckley, Carl C. Burgess, John W. Capron, James P. Carney, Irwin E. Chukerman, Otto Gabriel Chvosta, Frederick A. Coleman, John Fred Corradetti, Edward Cygan, William J. Darras, Francis J. Dawson, Everett L. Dean, David R. Denis, Elaine L. Detweiler, G. Grant Duncan, Edward A. DuVernay, William J. Eisler, Jr., Harris J. Enervold, Victor F. Erdelac, Charles P. Esposito, Raymond Farley, Clyde F. Friedman, George F. Gebes, Louis Joseph Giannini, Howard Gilbert, Richard D. Golden, Joseph H. Gondek, Robert Fred Groen, Frederick L. Hanson, Hubert K. Hawbecker, Edwin J. Helman, George Hewitt, Harold M. Hogueisson, James M. Holec, Edward J. Hollowed, Richard Casper Hoogenboom, Raymond P. Hynek, Julius Jackson, Albert S. Jacobson, Kenneth Jahnke, Richard J. Kalina, Benjamin F. Kelly, Thomas Stanley Ketcik, John H. Klingberg, Max Kolpas, Albert Kreitzer, Lenon Lathan, Kenneth Lawrence, William Leonard, Samuel David Levine, Edward F. Lobus, Emil L. Martino, Rufus E. Meeks, Marion Messman, Ernest P. Meszaros, Walter G. Moeller, James P. Moffett, Ralph Mollo, Jerome Moss, Jr., William Mossman, Robert E. Murray, Edward Obrochta, John Pankovich, Charles V. Parker, Michael Pill, Carlton Hunt Prindeville, Theodore Purvin, Raymond F. Pusczan, Carl M. Qualeatti, John Thomas Quinn, Louis T. Rivard, Benjamin S. Rosales, Edward J. Rudenga, Walter S. Rybicki, Lawrence N. Sands, Jr., Vaile J. Scott, Vernon P. Seiler, Marguerite K. Smith, Eli Sobat, George F. Soukup, Paul B. Stoxen, Richard Earl Taylor, Joseph E. Tierney, Fred H. Tolzien, Dennis Trettel, Harold S. Troupin, Robert G. Wachholz, Edward C. Williams, Jr., Joseph T. Zich.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, as doth the golden orb pulled across the sky each day by the chariot of Apollo, to decry an ignominy perpetuated on this Body by the captious Sunlight Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, the Sunlight Foundation says we talk dumb. How can the House of Lincoln, Jefferson and Wilbur Mills suffer such excoriation? I deem the Sunlight Foundation's findings fatuous. There has been no deliquescence of Congressional discourse.

Speak we not of life, liberty and hockey? In the words of Francois de la Rochefoucauld, who I believe was a defenseman for the original Canucks, ``True eloquence consists in saying all that should be said, and that only.'' So true. That is why as the elected arbiter of erudition from the 5th Congressional District, I decry the Foundation's obvious schadenfreude in our dictional dystopia. Let me repeat that word again: schadenfreude, which captures the zeitgeist of this badinage.

That is not to say there have been errors in eloquence. But soft! What F-bombs from Rahm's office breaks? His monosyllabic vocabulary evoked images of the corporeal, the priapistic and the unprintable. Alas, our words may not always dance ``trippingly on the tongue,'' as Hamlet encourages of his players in Act III of that eponymous work.

But nor do they need to. As Bertrand Russell said, ``To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy.'' And so we do our best in pursuit of that august goal. As to the Sunlight Foundation's farcical fomentations, I leave you with the thoughts of one post-modern philosopher, known for his dialectical ruminations on the salubrious effects of fermented hops and barley.

``Facts are meaningless,'' notes Homer Simpson. ``You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!''

So if the Sunlight Foundation must lampoon our verbal buffoonery, reducing us to linguistic lummoxes, remember Cecil Terwilliger's immortal retort to his brother Sideshow Bob's comment about spending four years in clown college: ``I'll thank you not to refer to Princeton that way.''

Mr. Chair, I am offering a commonsense amendment with my friend from the other side of the aisle Mr. Hultgren from Illinois.

Our amendment simply asks the Government Accountability Office to study the packaging procedures for hazardous materials by Department of Defense, and submit recommendations for improvements to Congress.

Safe and timely shipment of supplies and equipment to our troops is vital to their safety and success.

Unfortunately, due to the extremely complicated packaging requirements for hazardous materials, a large volume of needed supplies are often frustrated, or delayed.

According to one recent study by the Air Force, 73 percent of the hazmat frustrated shipments had no shipping documents and were delayed 11 15 days on average.

These delayed shipments harm our troops and costs us billions.

By reducing frustrated shipments by just 3 percent, DOD could save $2 billion annually.

Our amendment would require GAO to examine current shipping processes and identify improvements in order to expedite shipments, improve safety and reduce costs, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the more than 110,000 Polish- American constituents in the fifth Congressional district in Illinois, I proudly recognize the 75th anniversary of the Polish Museum of America.

Ever since the inaugural mayoral election where three Polish-American citizens cast their votes for our first mayor, the Polish community has been influencing the culture and direction of the city of Chicago.

The Polish Museum of America is one of the oldest ethnic museums in the United States. The museum was founded in 1935 as a way to promote Polish culture, literature, customs and history as well as attest to the Polish presence in North America.

The Polish Museum of America has one of the most extensive archives and libraries on Polish history in the world, including original prints of flyers, posters, books, and an amazing genealogical research section. The library and archives of the museum are truly invaluable resources for both the Polish and the non-Polish communities of Chicago.

The museum holds many important historical collections, two of which are a collection of personal belongings of Ignacy Jan Paderewski, the second prime minister of Poland, as well as the items from the 1939 World Fair Polish Pavilion. Along with these treasures of Polish history, the PMA frequently houses modern art and other temporary exhibits which represent the proud culture of the Polish people.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure and honor to congratulate the Polish Museum of America on 75 years of deepening all of our understanding and respect of the rich Polish history, traditions, and culture. I wish them even more success in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today because our Nation is at a crossroads. We are emerging from a deep recession but face a deficit topping $1 trillion for the 4th straight year.

And while we all agree that we must reduce our deficit, the real question, of course, is: How? How we decide to reduce our deficit will not only define our budget, it will define who we are as a Nation. Will we be a Nation that cuts vital programs like food and Medicaid in order to not only preserve but grow an outsized defense budget? Or will we choose a middle ground that is balanced, bipartisan, big, and leaves nothing off the table, including defense?

Sadly, the National Defense Authorization Act before us offers no middle ground and is not bipartisan. It is not balanced. At a time when we are being asked to cut education, infrastructure, and health care, this defense bill increases spending $4 billion over the President's request.

Let me be clear. We all want to cut spending. In fact, I, myself, introduced a bipartisan budget that mirrored the Simpson-Bowles plan and would have reduced the deficit with two-thirds cuts and one-third revenue. But the key to developing a bipartisan, balanced plan is to put everything on the table, including defense.

Military spending has more than doubled in the last 10 years and now comprises close to 20 percent of our overall budget. We spend almost four times more on defense than China and more

than the next 10 largest military spenders combined. We spend $500 million a year on military bands alone.

But it's not just about what we spend; it's also how we spend. Former Secretary of Defense Gates called for billions in cuts, saying, ``what had been a culture of endless money'' at DOD must ``become a culture of savings and restraint.''

Admiral Mike Mullen once called our debt the ``greatest threat to our national security.''

The Sustainable Defense Task Force and the Bipartisan Policy Center have also outlined close to $1 trillion in defense cuts that can still keep us safe.

But this defense budget doesn't reflect the expertise of our military leaders, defense experts, or the American people.

It ignores our military leaders by including a new east coast missile interceptor the Pentagon doesn't want, and it rolls back efforts by the DOD to be more energy efficient because the commanders on the ground know that lives are lost transporting fuel to troops abroad.

It ignores military experts by funding the deadly V 22 Osprey, which is 186 percent over budget, it is not safe to fly in extreme heat or excessive sand, has killed 36 servicemembers, and can be replaced with cheaper helicopters.

It also ignores experts such as Henry Kissinger, who promote drastically reducing our nuclear stockpile by including a huge funding increase for nuclear upgrades.

Finally, perhaps more importantly, it ignores the American people, who want a smaller military footprint and want our troops home from Afghanistan. According to a recent report released at the Stimson Center, the public supports cutting the defense budget by 18 percent. And according to the latest opinion polls, close to seven in 10 Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan, yet this defense bill includes language aimed at slowing down the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

We aren't fighting the Cold War anymore, yet this budget continues to invest billions in nuclear weapons and thousands of troops stationed in Europe and Asia.

Today our greatest threat is a global network of extremists who find safe haven in ungoverned spaces across the world. There have been at least 45 terrorist attacks plotted against the U.S. since 9/11, and each one of them was foiled, not by our mass ground forces in Afghanistan, but through intelligence, policing, and citizen engagement.

According to terrorism expert Erik Dahl of the Naval Postgraduate School, when it comes to domestic attacks and securing the homeland, what works is really good, old-fashioned policing, law enforcement, tips from the public, and police informants. Our enemy today must be caught with less costly policing, intelligence gathering, and special operations, not multibillion dollar tanks and nukes.

The real ramification of overspending on defense is not simply that we have too many unneeded nukes or planes, but that we don't have enough resources to support vital domestic investments such as health care, education, and infrastructure needed to remain a superpower.

Military power is not simply about spending more than our adversaries. Real military power, argues Kori Schake, a former McCain advisor, is ``premised on the solvency of the American Government and the vibrancy of the U.S. economy.'' In order to maintain that vibrancy, we must get our fiscal house in order and do so by reexamining our defense spending, and making cuts and reforming where necessary.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment with my friend from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) to cut funding for the V 22 Osprey and put the savings toward deficit reduction.

As many know, the Osprey has a long and troubled past. According to a 2009 GAO report, the Osprey was not suited to fly safely in extreme heat, excessive sand, or under enemy fire. The GAO also found that the Osprey was 186 percent over budget, costing over $100 million per unit to produce, or five times more than the Sea Knight helicopter it was designed to replace.

More recently, the Pentagon testing found that the readiness rate of the V 22 was well below that of traditional aircraft, noting:

Its average mission capable rate was 53 percent from June

2007 to May 2010, well below the required rate of 82 percent.

Sadly, due to these severe shortcomings, the V 22 has taken the lives of 36 individuals, including 31 servicemembers. Just last month, two marines lost their lives when an Osprey crashed in Morocco.

Now, I understand that since the 2009 report, a number of improvements have been made. Costs are being reduced and safety is being improved. I also understand the unique benefits the V 22 can provide to our servicemembers, especially for rescue operations. But these operations can be completed with less expensive helicopters. And here's the bottom line: we're emerging from a recession. We have a deficit topping $1 trillion for 4 straight years, and we have limited resources, which means we have to make choices.

As we look to reduce our deficit, we have to put everything on the table, including defense. Defense spending comprises close to 20 percent of our budget and yet this Defense authorization completely exempts any cuts from defense. In fact, it actually increases spending by over $4 billion over the President's request.

We have to take a hard look at what we are spending and ask ourselves: Is this essential? Given its continued cost overruns, poor safety record, and the fact that it can be replaced with less expensive helicopters, I think it is clear that the V 22 is not essential. At best it's suboptimal. It is certainly not essential. And I'm not alone. President George H.W. Bush tried to zero out funding for the V 22, but Congress wouldn't let him. Former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney tried to zero out funding for the V 22, but Congress wouldn't let him. And now the President's Bipartisan Fiscal Commission, the Bipartisan Policy Commission, and the Sustainable Defense Task Force have all recommended cutting the V 22 and replacing it with less expensive MH 60 helicopters.

But the reality is one of the reasons we block cuts to the V 22 is because 2,000 companies make supply parts for the Osprey from 40 States. I get it. The Department of Defense has become a jobs program. If all we're worried about is job creation, we'd be better off building bridges and transit programs because in the end we have to remember the big picture. Choosing to fund this over-budget, dangerous, nonessential plane means cuts in other vital areas such as education, infrastructure, and health care.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in scrutinizing this budget, setting priorities, and cutting programs that aren't essential in order to protect ones that are. This Defense authorization bill includes a long list of nonessential programs, all of which should be cut. But a vote for my amendment to cut the over-budget, under-performing V 22 Osprey is a step in the right direction.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the fact remains, studies still show this a dangerous vehicle. Studies still show it is suboptimal. Studies still show it is wildly over cost.

I want to help marines. I want to save marine lives. That's why this amendment is appropriate. It is, in the end, still dangerous pork with wings.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I agree, it's not political, but the Senate had it right.

Every year we reauthorize this, we expand who we're protecting. The scenery is moving behind us, as well. We need to make sure we take those people into consideration. Strive as you might to avoid trying to protect LGBT victims, the Senate had it right, and we should do that here.

According to a recent survey of service providers who work with LGBT victims, 85 percent work with victims who have been denied services because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. Gender- neutral language is not sufficient. Gay men are not turned away from shelters because they're men; they're turned away because of discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

Discrimination is real. Violence is violence. Personal stories matter, but they should matter to everyone. Every one of these people are citizens of our country that deserve equal protection. Discrimination is real, and we can't pretend it doesn't exist or hope that we don't have to have--

I know there are folks who don't want to, in any way, have a pro-gay vote on it, but this is protecting human beings. It's the right thing to do. It should have been in this part of the bill. I suggest everyone vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act.

This bill is a broken promise.

It would eliminate the Social Service Block Grant, which funds essential services like child abuse prevention and Meals on Wheels.

It would cut off food assistance for 1.8 million Americans, and leave 100,000 children and senior citizens without health insurance, so we can increase defense spending.

We spend nearly as much on defense every year as the rest of the world combined.

This includes billions maintaining a nuclear arsenal designed for the Cold War, and $500 million a year for military bands.

We can protect ourselves and our allies with a leaner, smarter defense.

Yet if we make cuts like these, our military will have little to defend.

We will only solve our debt crisis with a balanced, bipartisan approach that honors our commitments.

Mr. Speaker, last week the ATF announced the results of the first 8 months of its Multiple Sales Reporting program, or MSR, for semiautomatic rifles. The numbers prove the MSR is already an invaluable tool in fighting gun trafficking along the southwest border. There were more than 3,000 reports accounting for the purchase of 7,300 rifles between Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. These reports resulted in more than 120 criminal investigations; and, subsequently, 25 cases involving 100 defendants have been recommended for prosecution. The ATF also reported a decline in large volume rifle purchases, indicating that traffickers are altering their criminal activity due to the new reporting requirement.

The MSR program was created to counteract the dangerous trafficking of guns along our border with Mexico. These guns fuel the cartels' war in Mexico, destabilizing our southern neighbor and third-largest trading partner. According to ATF data, 70 percent of the firearms recovered and traced from drug cartel crimes in Mexico originated in the United States.

So in light of the positive impact the MSR has had, what is the House voting to do just this week? That's right, repeal the measure. A policy rider in the Commerce, Justice, and Science 2013 appropriations bill would cut off funding for reporting the sale of multiple semiautomatic rifles. Yes, this House will vote to block funding that is successfully removing semiautomatic rifles from the underground gun trade. These are the guns that endanger Americans along the border and fuel an all-out war in a neighboring country. Ending the MSR requirement is not about protecting anyone's rights.

Reporting the sale of multiple semiautomatic rifles does not infringe on Second Amendment rights. In fact, a similar Multiple Sales Reporting requirement has been in place for handguns for over 20 years. The necessary paperwork takes gun dealers 12 minutes to complete, but can give law enforcement crucial intelligence on straw purchased rifles.

A George Bush-appointed Federal judge upheld the MSR requirement, finding that it did not disturb the balance between regulation and a gun owner's right to privacy. So the gun lobby has now turned to cutting its funding because why allow programs successfully fighting gun trafficking to continue undisturbed? This has become an all-too- familiar event for the ATF, which has operated under temporary leadership since 2006 due to blocked confirmation in the Senate. But it's beyond just that administration.

According to The Washington Post, in 2010, the ATF had the same number of agents it had in 1970 while the FBI has grown by 50 percent and the DEA by 233 percent. Gun ownership records are kept on paper because the NRA has successfully lobbied against funding computerized records.

With recordkeeping from the fifties and funding from the seventies, it's no wonder law enforcement struggles in 2012. So maybe it's not surprising the MSR program would encounter such heated opposition. An effective investigative tool for law enforcement with only a negligible effect on gun dealers, that would be evidence of regulatory solutions that can work for everyone--the dealers, the buyers, and, most importantly, the public. And that's exactly what the gun lobby doesn't want.

If commonsense solutions like Multiple Sales Reporting can stand, what's next? Requiring background checks for sales at gun shows, which 69 percent of NRA members support? Denying people on the terrorist watch list the right to buy a gun?

To the gun lobby, there's nothing scarier than common sense winning out. So this week, let's scare them. Let's win one for common sense. Let's keep reporting the sale of multiple semiautomatic rifles like we do with handguns. Let's allow the ATF to continue making progress against dangerous gun trafficking on our southwest border. Let's make a choice that's best for law enforcement, our security, and for common sense.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the long and distinguished career of John ``Jay'' Dalicandro. Mr. Dalicandro, who honorably serves the Village of Elmwood Park as village manager, plans to retire this June after 23 years of service.

A native of Elmwood Park, Jay has remained a part of the community throughout his life. To date Mr. Dalicandro is the longest-serving Village Manager Elwood Park has ever had and his retirement will leave some big shoes to fill. Jay is admired by those in his community for his enduring devotion to the Village of Elmwood Park and his service is to be commended.

During his tenure as Village Manager, Jay has done a tough job very well. He has been responsible for day-to-day operations of the Village of Elmwood Park. Most people in Jay's position remain as Village Manager for a short stint before moving on to another position, but Jay's commitment to the people of Elmwood Park for the past 23 years demonstrates his sincere devotion to the wellbeing of the community.

Mr. Dalicandro's vision for the Village of Elmwood Park has impressed his peers and ensured a bright future for the Village. Jay's accomplishments as Village Manager include establishing the Village's first tax increment finance district, superb handling of the Villages finances, and a commitment to establishing new parkland for the Village. In addition to these accomplishments, Mr. Dalicandro has succeeded in ensuring the Village's fiscal stability by consistently staying under budget.

Jay is credited as being the man who brought the Village of Elmwood Park into the 21st century. His colleagues recognize the hard work he has invested into the community. Undoubtedly, the impact Jay has had on the Village of Elmwood Park will be seen for years and decades to come.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Jay Dalicandro and his commitment to public service in his community. The devotion he has demonstrated to his work in the Village serves as an example to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the World War II veterans who traveled to Washington, DC on April 25, 2012 with Honor Flight Chicago, a program that provides World War II veterans the opportunity to visit the World War II Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, DC. This memorial was built to honor their courage and service to their country.

The American Veteran is one of our greatest treasures. The Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen who traveled here on April 25 answered our Nation's call to service during one of its greatest times of need. From the European Campaign to the Pacific Asian Theatre to the African Theater, these brave Americans risked life and limb, gave service and sacrificed much, all while embodying what it is to be a hero. We owe them more gratitude than can ever be expressed.

I welcome these brave veterans to Washington and to their memorial. I am proud to submit the names of these men and women for all to see, hear, and recognize, and I call on my colleagues to rise and join me in expressing gratitude.

John Abraham, Jr.; Fred Alpern; Arthur L. Barron; Elizabeth H. Bartolich; Philip Bartolotta; John N. Basic; Robert R. Beazley; Jerry S. Benesh; Francis J. Bialas; Victor N. Bonneau; Robert D. Brakley; Stanley A. Branauskas; LeRoy Matthias Braun; Leo B. Braun, Jr.; Francis Brogan; Laveryl Williams Brown; Roy V. Carlson; Gabriel A. Casalino; Josephine E. Chandler.

Melvin Chesler; Melvin A. Conviser; Ned L. Crandall; Wanda Ann Cukla; Anthony A. Czarnowski; Harry Dandelles; Carl William Davis; Jerome Dribin; George Druktenis, Sr.; Melvin A. Ehlers; Forrest J. Fischer; William Fisher; Edward Fox; Harvey Fritz; Paul A. Genova; Charles C. Giovannini; Donald L. Glasgow; Joseph Goldenberg; Edward J. Gorczowski; Harvey Gossell.

Nikles K. Hagopian; LeRoy J. Hankins; Howard Roy Heckmann; Arthur P. Heminger; Joseph Hojdik; Donald Hoskinson; John S. Houston; Colin S. Howat; Charles G. Hunt; David Johnson; Thomas Jundanian; Irving K. Kannett; Lloyd L. Keiber; Joseph A. Marthaler; John H. McCollom; Donald T. McCollom; Kenneth Joseph McDonough; Thomas P. McKale; Mavis L. McNamara; Robert E. Morin; Irene L. Mostek; Clarence O. Norman; Stanley T. Oboy; Robert T. Olson; Joseph Leo O'Mara, Sr.; Elijah Ostrander, Jr.; Joseph J. Paladino; Robert Pankau; Donald B. Patterson, Jr.; James D. Patton; Emanuel T. Petrakis; Veronica S. Potter; William J. Prindiville; Ernest M. Reynolds; Ernest E. Rittenhouse; Walter C. Russell; Walter Jerome Sawkiw.

John F. Schmaling; William F. Schmidt; Melvin Schneider; Milton Schwartz; Harry Silver; Richard J. Small; Delmar J. Smith; Jarmila V.

Stark; Cecil O. Swanson; Earl G. Thompson; Stanley A. Thompson, Jr.; Clyde A. Voigt; Bernard J. Warchol; William K. Watson; William J. Weldon; Fred Wolf; Myron Wolff; Donald R. Zirzow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the World War II veterans who traveled to Washington, DC, on April 4, 2012 with Honor Flight Chicago, a program that provides World War II veterans the opportunity to visit the World War H Memorial on The National Mall in Washington, DC. This memorial was built to honor their courage and service to their country.

The American Veteran is one of our greatest treasures. The Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen who traveled here on April 4 answered our nation's call to service during one of its greatest times of need. From the European Campaign to the Pacific Asian Theatre to the African Theater, these brave Americans risked life and limb, gave service and sacrificed much, all while embodying what it is to be a hero. We owe them more gratitude than can ever be expressed.

I welcome these brave veterans to Washington and to their memorial. I am proud to submit the names of these men and women for all to see, hear, and recognize, and I call on my colleagues to rise and join me in expressing gratitude.

Leonard David Adler; David S. Albert; Donald John Anderson; Richard J. Andrew; Theodore Arey; Harold L. Autrey; Asa Melville Bacon; Rudolf Balek; Stanley C. Bartecki, Jr.; Robert L. Barz; Victor J. Biasetti; Otto R. Bobysud; Raymond J. Brejcha; Joseph P. Brooks; Walter H. Burtan; Joseph S. Buttice; Jack R. Cerniglia; Ranson Coleman; John M. Conway; James J. Corolis; James M. Cribbs;

Robert Chapman Dillion; John L. Dykstra; Harry A. Fandre, Jr.; Chester S. Faron; Willie Ferba, Jr.; Joe J. Fleck; George E. Fyock; Edwin D. Geisenheimer; Mark M. Greenburg; Joseph H. Gross; Don R. Gunderson; Maurice G. Guysenir; Hallie J. Hamilton; George J. Hazdra; Floyd J. Hoffman; Emmit Ingram, Jr.; Edward Jage; Richard H. Johnson; George M. Kaiser; Frank William Karl; Chester J. Kijak; Richard R. Kinneman; Robert F. Kirby; John D. Kiser; Joseph Kujawa; Wallace Bruce Kurtz; Walter E. Lambert.

James T. Langan; LeRoy Larson; Stanley Marvin Levy; Edward V. Lisowski; Robert R. Luke; Charles E. Mahan; Anthony Marino; Wilbur J. Martin; Virgil E. Mathias, Jr.; William J. McCaffrey; James A. Moscato, Jr.; James M. Mulqueeny; Carl A. Nelson; Joseph A. Nemanich; David S. Newquist; Franklyn M. Nipper; Daniel N. Obriot; John Oldenburger; David E. Olson; Joseph V. Pacelli; Robert V. Peck; Betty M. Peterson; Harold Peterson; Richard L. Raddatz; Angelo S. Regopoulos; Robert Joseph Roelle; Marvin Rose; Arnold Marshall Rusten; Robert T. Sasman; Jean A. Scheve; Charles William Schoenherr; Richard S. Schofield; Frank A. Schroeder; M. Eldon Schultz; William Springer; Robert A. Thatcher; James H. Thoma; Preston G. Thorpe; Robert W. Tobiaski; Fred E. Turek, Jr.; Robert G. Wallace; Allan A. Walters; Donald Lutter Wood; Bill Zamzow; George Zervos; Norman H. Zumm.

Mr. Speaker, the number one fear of Chicago elementary schoolchildren is not braces or book reports or the dentist. It is getting shot. More than 500 Chicago students were involved in gun violence in the last 2 years, and 34 were killed by guns last year. In a single week in June, there were 60 shootings in Chicago.

The Chicago police traced many of the guns used in these types of shootings to gun shows in neighboring States. You can go to a gun show in neighboring State Indiana and buy any weapon you want without a single background check. You can be a convicted felon or a domestic abuser who is under a restraining order or a suspected terrorist, and you can walk right in to a gun show and walk out with an assault weapon.

A member of Hezbollah purchased weapons at an American gun show the day before 9/11. Is this what the American people want? Do the American people approve of a situation in which terrorists can buy guns without even the level of tracking we use for airplane tickets or cold medicine?

The American people want our law enforcement officers to have the tools they need to catch the bad guys. Eighty-one percent of gun owners support requiring a background check on all firearm purchases. Ninety percent of all Americans favor strengthening databases to prevent the mentally ill from buying guns. Sixty-nine percent of NRA members-- that's NRA members--support closing the gun show loophole.

So why aren't we acting on these areas where there is such overwhelming public support? Well, the majority has to rally its base, and the NRA has to send more urgent appeals for support based on imagined threats. So, this week, we're courageously protecting bullets from harmful regulation by the EPA, because a little lead in the water never hurt anyone, right?

The bill also gives sportsmen the right to stand their ground against polar bears. Anyone who opposes vigilante justice against this arctic menace is clearly a gun-grabbing Communist. All of this would be funny if the same mentality weren't being used by the NRA against our Nation's youth. Twenty-five States have passed Stand Your Ground laws, declaring open season on anyone considered threatening to anyone at any time.

These laws were not passed because of a public demand for them. They were passed because the NRA teamed up with some of the largest soft drink manufacturing and retailing corporations to push for these laws. Why soda companies would support the efforts to pass these laws is beyond me; but the impact is that a 17-year-old who is buying one of their sodas is now under a much greater threat. Let's have a reality check. Let's take action on one of these areas where there is clear, overwhelming support.

I sat in this Chamber and listened to Mexican President Felipe Calderon plead with Congress to close this loophole that fuels violence between the cartels in his country; but as the NRA president, himself, has pointed out, Congress has done nothing. We hold hearings to point out that the ATF lacks leadership but continue to block the appointment of a director. We talk about the need to enforce the laws on the books but look the other way as those laws are ignored at gun shows. We stop suspected terrorists from boarding airplanes but not from buying 30- round clips. All of this is based on the fantasy that denying terrorists assault rifles is the first step to national gun confiscation.

The Supreme Court answered that in the D.C. and Chicago handgun cases. The Court found that there is an individual right to bear arms. It is a limited right, subject to local control, but it is a right. That is now settled law, so the people who make their livings scaring gun owners have to resort to conspiracy theories to keep the donations

coming. Now is the time to move past the beltway extremists and listen to the American people. Are these tough votes? Maybe, but that's what we were sent here to do.

I want to mention Blair Holt, a Chicago high school student, son of two lifelong public servants. Blair was riding a bus, while on his way home from school, when a gun was pulled on his friend. He stepped in front of the gun and was shot to death while protecting his friend.

I ask my colleagues to think of that the next time they want to claim they can't do anything about gun violence. Blair Holt was willing to take a bullet for a friend. Shouldn't we be willing to take a tough vote for our children?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Center on Halsted on its 5-year anniversary of building and strengthening the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community in Chicago.

On June 1 of 2007, I was proud to join residents from my district and across Illinois on the corner of Halsted and Waveland as Chicago's first permanent LGBT community center opened its doors. Since that time, Center on Halsted has become the Midwest's largest LGBT community center and a model for similar organizations across our Nation.

Patrons of all ages, backgrounds, and economic status participate in the wide assortment of public programs and social services offered at the center. Its youth program provides leadership training and professional development to more than 1,800 young people across Chicago. Social service programs include rapid HIV testing, group and individual psychotherapy, legal help, job training, and the Anti- Violence Project advocating for victims of hate crimes and domestic violence.

Under the leadership of CEO Modesto Tico Valle and the great efforts of so many people, Center on Halsted has grown into the phenomenal organization that it is today, welcoming the LGBT community and making our entire community a better place.