Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Earth's 7 billionth person was born. Our population has doubled in the last 50 years, and it could double again by the end of the century if we let it.

This rapid growth is straining water and food supplies, reducing access to health care and education, and even creating instability and violence.

Most importantly, this growth is denying women in nations like Yemen and Afghanistan, who still average more than five children, their basic human right to decide if, when, and how many children to have; 215 million women around the world say they want access to contraception but can't get it. We can fulfill that need and save lives, improve lives, and save tax dollars while we do it.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, meeting this unmet need for family planning could save the lives of 251,000 women and 1.7 million newborns, improve rates of education and health, and save a net total of $1.5 billion.

America can lead the world in family planning as it once did, but we have to increase our investment in international family planning.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the World War II veterans who are traveling to Washington, D.C. today with Honor Flight Chicago, a program who provides as many World War II veterans as possible the opportunity to see the World War II Memorial here in Washington, D.C., a memorial that was built to honor their courage and service.

The American Veteran is one of our greatest treasures. The Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen traveling here today 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.

Marvin Leroy Abramson, Louis Alejandre, Earl Allen, Robert Arvidson, Thomas Atchison, Julio A. Battistoni, Birgie Dean Bergeson, Charles S. Bergh, Earl F. Bishop, Stanley J. Biskup, Ralph Blattner, Marjorie H. Bobzin, William J. Bolt, Lloyd Bowman, Seymour Brodsky, Edward V. Bucaro, Norman E. Burbury, Julius Burrell, Anthony Candice, Wiliam J. Christian, Vernon Ciske, Guy Colletti, Irving Covitt, Louis Czyzewski, Robert K. Dean, Walter J. Dobosz, Edward L. Effertz, Vincent J. Fiduccia, Arthur E. Fossland, Paul J. Gerjol, Wilbert Gerrish, Louis Guthmann, Arthur J. Habel, Gerald Hastings, Roscoe Hastings, Edward C. Hausknecht Jr., Albert R. Heminger, Edward J. Heywood, William R. Higgins, Gerald Hulslander, Diderick M. Iversen, Robert Jenkins, Alfred Jordi Jr., Francis Kaduk, Albert Komar, John Kotowski, Robert Bernhardt Krueger, Walter C. Kuhn, Herbert J. Lustig, George Mahony, James E. McShane, William Merrill, Harold Milling, Edwin John Misniak, Charles W. Moffett, Aldo J. Mob, Mary C. Nolan, Fulton Nolen Sr., Joseph R. Pacholski, Jerome Pierce, Joseph P. Pomykala, Frank N. Popp, Frederick Popper, Richard Priske, Robert Prorok, Eugene G. Qualizza, John Radke, Fred V. Randazzo, Kenneth L. Rapalee, Raymond F. Reece, William G. Rieker, John L. Ritchie, Eugene V. Rodarte, Shirley Marie Roeing, Richard Sven Roeing, Sam A. Scardino, Louis C. Seno, Vincent James Serio, Lawrence Smith, Samuel Stookal, Edward Sulkowski, Clarence F. Talentowski, Herbert L. Tatroe, Hilbert 0. Teske, George H. Thompson, Gilbert T. Vinzani, George H. Vozari, Barbara Q. Watson, Harold E. Weir, Franklin C. Wellhausen, John P. Whitbroad, Richard Wolff, Berlin W. Wyman, Elmo R. Younger, Michael Yurchak, Leonard F. Zaehler, Walter Ziolkowski.

Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, I stood on this floor and spoke out against the injustice of our Nation's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. I told the story of Lee Reinhart, a patriotic constituent of mine who wanted to serve his country in time of war.

Lee had already retired from a 4-year Navy career when our Nation was attacked on September 11. Like many Americans after September 11, Lee wanted to serve his country and again enlisted in the Coast Guard. But 4 months later, he was discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Last December my colleagues and I repealed that policy; and Monday, I had the honor of administering the oath to Lee Reinhart as he reenlisted in the Navy.

Dr. Martin Luther King once said, ``The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.'' Mr. Speaker, I was proud of my country and proud of Lee Reinhart when justice finally arrived for both.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give a voice to the voiceless victims of domestic violence.

I want to tell the story of one woman from my State of Illinois who endured years of abuse and called our State's Domestic Violence Help Line for help.

In her call, the woman explained that over the years she had suffered black eyes, broken and knocked out teeth, and broken bones. She said she couldn't take it anymore, but she couldn't leave because she feared her abuser would find her and kill her. She was suicidal and said she just needed to end it with the pills she had been collecting. Luckily, this woman reached out for help. 911 was called, and the help line staff stayed on the line with her until the paramedics arrived.

But, sadly, most women never report their abuse. And even for those who do find the strength to report, many are denied services, such as shelter, due to scarce resources. I speak today for those who cannot speak for themselves to say: We can end domestic violence; all we need is the will to do so.

Madam Chair, it is absolutely untenable that there are currently no federally enforceable regulations specific to coal ash.

This lack of federally enforceable safeguards is what led to the disaster in Tennessee, where a dam holding more than 1 billion gallons of toxic coal ash failed.

This spill destroyed 300 acres, dozens of homes, killed fish and other wildlife, and poisoned the Emory and Clinch Rivers.

Living near an unlined coal ash waste pond and drinking water contaminated with arsenic can be more dangerous than smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, according to a risk assessment done by the EPA.

People living near unlined coal ash ponds where water is contaminated by arsenic and ash is mixed with coal refuse have an extremely high risk of cancer, up to 1 in 50.

This is 2000 times greater than EPA's acceptable cancer risk.

So, we can burn coal, creating sodium, thallium, mercury, boron, aluminum and arsenic which is pumped out of the factory and into the air.

Or, we can stop stripping our land, polluting our air and waters and do what's right.

The first step is to establish comprehensive, federally enforceable safeguards that protect human health, wildlife, and the environment.

The measure we consider today fails to establish a national legal standard for coal ash.

The bill also places significant limits on the ability of the EPA to conduct an independent review of state programs.

When it comes to matters of public health there are no such things as good compromises.

As Randy Ellis, a Republican and County Commissioner for Roane County, Tennessee, the county where the TVA spill happened, said earlier this week--the environment is truly a non-partisan issue.

I stand here in opposition to this bill as neither a Democrat nor a politician, but someone who believes that this bill neither protects our public health, nor does it make our country better.

I urge my colleagues to do what's right and oppose H.R. 2273.

Madam Speaker, I rise in celebration of National Hockey League's Hockey Fights Cancer Day on the Hill.

Anyone who has played the great sport of hockey or who has watched a game has probably seen a fight or two on the ice. It's no secret that hockey players are a tough group. But off the ice, there are bigger fights being waged each and every day by people even tougher than your average hockey player, even players like former Blackhawk Reid Simpson.

Those living with and fighting against cancer are tougher than the toughest odds and incredibly brave in spite of daunting treatment and an uncertain future. With nearly 12 million patients in America today, most of us know someone fighting cancer, be it a family member, friend, or neighbor.

The NHL's Hockey Fights Cancer initiative is an extraordinary opportunity for members of the hockey family to stand up for our loved ones and to support the organizations that provide cutting-edge research, therapy, and vital support services that make their lives better.

This is one fight I'm proud to be a part of, and I encourage other hockey fans out there to join me as Hockey Fights Cancer.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because it is an assault on a woman's health and her right to make her own life decisions.

Madam Speaker, earlier this year, we learned what opponents of choice really think of women when they attempted to redefine rape in H.R. 3, when they claimed to be fiscal watchdogs and then voted to repeal funding for family planning services and Planned Parenthood, which saves the public $4 for every $1 invested.

Now they are pushing H.R. 358, the falsely named Protect Life Act, which, rather than protecting life, would actually allow hospitals to refuse lifesaving treatment to women on religious or moral grounds. This bill would also effectively ban comprehensive insurance coverage, which includes abortion care--even if a woman pays with her own private dollars.

H.R. 358, like every extremist, antichoice measure before it reveals what choice opponents really think of women. Here is what I think of women: I think they should be able to make their own life choices about their own bodies.

I think we should vote down this bill and every other destructive measure being pushed by those who think so little of our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I feel like I have a case of deja vu. Two years ago, I stood on this floor, on the eighth anniversary of our invasion of Afghanistan, and asked: Have our 8 years, 791 American deaths, and billions of U.S. dollars spent in Afghanistan made America safer?

Today, I stand in the same place asking the same question. Now, 10 years have passed, 1,800 American lives have been lost, and we have spent almost half a trillion dollars, and I have to ask again: Have 10 years in Afghanistan made America safer? Sadly, just as I concluded 2 years ago, I must conclude again today, they have not.

We went into Afghanistan under the mantle of protecting America's national security. The perpetrators of September 11, al Qaeda, were in Afghanistan, and we had to go after them. But just as was the case 2 years ago, al Qaeda is no longer primarily in Afghanistan. In fact, only 50 to 100 al Qaeda operatives are estimated to be operating in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda's primary hub is still located across the border in tribal areas of Pakistan. And other al Qaeda cells are operating around the world in Yemen, North Africa, and through affiliated groups in Southeast Asia and Uzbekistan.

Threats to America are not from Afghanistan but from ungoverned spaces around the world and even right here on American soil. A review of recently foiled terrorist plots shores up the widespread origins of U.S.-centered terror attempts. The Times Square bomber is a Pakistani American who received training in the Waziristan region of Pakistan. The explosives hidden in ink cartridges and destined for an American synagogue in my own district in Chicago were planted by a Saudi militant and shipped from Yemen. The Christmas Day airline bomber was a Nigerian, inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki, who was based in Yemen. And another devotee of al-Awlaki was the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hasan, an American citizen born in Virginia.

Not one of these terror plots originated in Afghanistan, and yet still we maintain close to 100,000 U.S. troops on the ground there. Every major U.S. victory the U.S. has had in the fight against terrorism has come not on the ground in Afghanistan but through targeted attacks such as those that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and the recent strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen.

There have been at least 45 jihadist 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 a combination of 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, police informants.''

Not only is our military action in Afghanistan not making us safer, but research indicates it could actually be making us less safe. As counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen points out, rather than reducing the number of terrorists, the U.S. presence in Afghanistan could actually be spurring new terrorism as locals band together to resist foreign occupation.

It's called accidental guerrilla syndrome.

Further, a report issued last year by the gentleman from Massachusetts, Representative Tierney, revealed the U.S. military is funding the multibillion dollar protection racket. A good portion of a $2.16 billion transportation contract is being paid to corrupt public officials, warlords, and the Taliban to get needed supplies to our troops. We are funding the very insurgency we are fighting.

We went into Afghanistan to make America safer, but, for several years now, we have known that our enemies are no longer concentrated in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is an enemy without borders, and so now we must have a strategy without borders. The question now is: Will we adjust our strategy to reflect today's circumstances, or will we continue to live in the past, repeating this destructive cycle of sending dollars and troops to a mission no longer central to American security?

We have to end our military presence in Afghanistan now, because I don't want to stand in this same spot a year from now with another case of deja vu.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment permits the EPA to continue to enforce and finalize the regulations preempted by the bill at hand if the emissions limited by these regulations are found to cause cancer. In other words, this amendment says the administrator shall not delay actions to reduce the emissions from any cement kiln if such emissions are increasing the occurrence of cancer.

We stand here today having an argument that is predicated on the notion that when it comes to matters of job creation and environmental stewardship and protection of public health,

you can only have one or the other. You must pick between creating and retaining jobs, they'll tell you, or protecting and conserving our land, air, water, and keeping our public healthy. This is a false notion, born of scare tactics and the fact that those who purport these ideas aren't basing their beliefs on science.

There are both economic and societal factors involved. It's not an either/or. It's dollar signs, yes; but it's also lives, days in hospitals, cancer treatments, and trips to the emergency room for small children and the elderly.

Come to Chicago, the asthma morbidity and mortality capital of the United States.

Cement kilns are the third largest source of mercury emissions in the U.S. Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that impacts and impairs the ability of infants and children to think and learn. The toxic air pollutants found in cement kiln emissions can cause cancer, and they do.

The toxic air pollutants found in cement kiln emissions damage the eyes, skin, and breathing passages. The toxic air pollutants found in cement kiln emissions harm the kidneys, lungs, and nervous systems. They cause pulmonary and cardiovascular disease and premature death.

The carcinogens found in cement kiln emissions include toxic air pollutants including mercury, arsenic, acid gases, hydrochloric acid, dioxins, and other harmful pollutants that add to the Nation's problems with soot and smog. They are known carcinogens, known carcinogens pumped from these sources into our air, into our land, and into our waters. They even land on the grass in Wisconsin eaten by cows and drunk in milk.

But don't take my word for it. Look at the numbers. Plain and simple, Madam Chair, the Clean Air Act saves lives. The Clean Air Act has saved the lives of over 160,000 people in the 40 years it has been on the books. This is not a number to be debated. In fact, this is a number that is conservatively estimated by the EPA.

This is not some inflated statistic designed for shock value or for any other reason. We know that the Clean Air Act has human value. Since 1990, EPA has set numeric emission limits on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis for more than 100 industry source categories. This approach has been a major success, reducing emissions of carcinogens and other highly toxic chemicals by 1.7 million tons each year.

Each of EPA's proposed rules would save thousands more lives each year. One example, an example we're dealing with today, pertains to the EPA's proposed rule regarding toxic emissions from cement kilns. This rule simply calls for cement kilns to meet numeric emission standards for mercury and other toxic pollutants.

This so-called ``job-killing'' rule is predicted to save up to 2,500 lives each year. The limit will annually prevent 1,500 heart attacks, 17,000 asthma attacks and over 1,700 hospital and emergency room visits and 130,000 days of missed work. Any rule that saves lives is a matter of public health.

We're dealing with skyrocketing rates of death due to asthma and burdening more children at earlier ages with lifelong and sometimes debilitating cases of asthma from particulate matter being pumped into our air.

A report released by the American Lung Association reported nearly 60 percent of Americans live in areas where air pollution has reached unhealthy levels that can and do make people sick.

These are measures that will help keep us alive and able to work. These are measures that will create jobs in the clean and green industrial industry.

Attacks on the Clean Air Act and the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases are a huge piece of the larger climate crisis, a crisis that has a hefty cost: our lives. The need to crack down on greenhouse gas emissions is based on sound science, the results of hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that show their debilitating effects on our health and our planet--zero peer-reviewed studies that show that global warming does not exist and that man does not contribute to it.

We're asked to go back now. Why? Why are we considering legislation to halt rules that have been considered for now 10 years? This is beyond me. Why are we considering legislation to halt rules that will keep us at work, healthy and alive?

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, we have been in Afghanistan for 10 years.

Two years ago, on the eighth anniversary of our invasion of Afghanistan, I stood in this same spot and asked: Have our 8 years, 791 American deaths, and billions of U.S. dollars spent in Afghanistan made America safer? My conclusion, sadly, was no.

Two years later, I am left asking the same questions and reaching the same conclusions: al-Qaeda is still not primarily in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan, Yemen, Africa and elsewhere. We still cannot afford a vast ground war and rebuilding effort abroad. We should be fighting a smaller, smarter war that goes after terrorists instead of building nations. It's time to get out of Afghanistan before another year passes and we are back here saying the same thing all over again.

Offered By: Mr. Quigley

Amendment No. 7: At the end of the bill, add the following

section:

Offered By: Mr. Quigley

Amendment No. 8: At the end of the bill, add the following

section:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the long and distinguished career of Principal David Maring. This summer, Mr. Maring retired after 46 years of dedication to education and academic excellence as a teacher and principal of Pilgrim Lutheran School in the 5th Congressional District of Chicago.

Mr. Maring began his long and respected career in education by joining Pilgrim Lutheran School as a teacher in 1965. After six years of excellent service he became principal of Pilgrim Lutheran.

As a principal, Mr. Maring was so dedicated to his profession that he made the extra effort to know every student by name. He inspired his staff to become the best teachers they could be in order to provide an excellent education for their students. He sought to provide a progressive education to nourish the students in both spirit and mind. Mr. Maring never fully left the classroom, and he continued to teach math and physical education and coach sports teams throughout his tenure.

Mr. Maring's dedication to his profession, his exceptional wisdom and leadership ensure his lasting place in the hearts of generations of Pilgrim students, faculty, and the Ravenswood community at large. Mr. Maring is the embodiment of the Pilgrim Lutheran motto: ``Academic Excellence with a Heart.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing David Maring and his extraordinary career, and to thank him for his many contributions to the Pilgrim Lutheran School, his students, and the community.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my constituent, Maurice Spiegel, who will turn 100 years old on October 27, 2011. Maurie, as he is known, is the son of Max Spiegel and Ida Kaplan, and has an older sister, Tillie, and five brothers, Lou, Irv, Frank, Hy, and Bill.

Growing up near Roosevelt Road and Halsted Street in the City of Chicago, Maurie encountered great difficulties as a young boy. His family struggled to make ends meet, and his mother had to raise the children on her own. To help his family, Maurie began selling newspapers, putting whatever he earned under his mother's pillow. When his family could no longer afford school supplies, Maurie dropped out of high school and started working in order to contribute even more.

According to his family, Maurie was very athletic as a child. He was well known for his skills in soft ball and hitting home runs. He was also a great swimmer, once saving a child from drowning. Living in a tough neighborhood, Maurie learned to defend himself and his younger brothers, though he always maintained that he never started a fight, just finished them! Today, Maurie is now known for his outstanding ability in the game of checkers.

During World War II, Maurie served in the U.S. Army from 1941 to 1945 and was stationed in Attu, which is the westernmost island of the Aleutian Islands of Alaska. Maurie obtained his high school G.E.D. and took several college courses under the G.I. Bill after his military service. He worked various positions for the United States Postal Service in Chicago for 27 years until his retirement. Despite being retired, Maurie worked as a messenger for Continental Bank for another 15 years. Since high school, Maurie has worked full time until he was almost 80 years old.

Maurie married the love of his life, Lucille, and had one son, Harvey. Lucille and Maurie moved into North Park Village Apartments in 1984. Lucille passed away in 1987. Harvey says of his parents, ``My dad was the most loyal and reliable husband to my mom. They were a couple who truly loved each other.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Maurice ``Maurie'' Spiegel on his 100th birthday. His life is a wonderful testament of his immense love for his family and of his outstanding dedication and service to his community and the United States of America.

It's not too late. That's my message to Palestinian Authority President Abbas, who has announced his intention to seek unilateral Palestinian statehood at the United Nations this Friday. It's not too late to abandon this reckless route, engage in direct negotiations with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and choose the path to peace.

There is only one road to a peace agreement, and that is through direct talks between Israelis and Palestinians. This course forward is clearly outlined in the Oslo Peace Agreement, which states that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be resolved through direct, two-party negotiations. Anything outside of these direct talks--particularly this Palestinian appeal for U.N. recognition--is a dangerous digression from the known way forward.

In addition to veering from the track toward two states, a status upgrade at this time could allow the Palestinians to pursue cases against Israel in international institutions such as the International Criminal Court. Such institutions could even be used to request advisory rulings on final status issues, further circumventing two- party negotiations.

The U.S. has also made significant investments in bolstering Palestinian security and economic prosperity, all in an effort to enable the Palestinians to make the difficult concessions necessary to move toward peace. This appeal to the U.N. and rejection of direct two- party talks directly undermines considerable American efforts and investments in a peace deal. Abbas and the Palestinians need to come back to the negotiating table, and it is the U.S. that needs to lead them back and spearhead negotiations.

As a true and steadfast friend to Israel, there has never been a more vital time for America to stand strong with our ally. With the excitement and hope of the Arab Spring has also come a great deal of uncertainty--uncertainty about the strength of the relationship between Israel and Turkey; uncertainty about the willingness of the Egyptians to hold true to their promises under the benchmark 1979 peace treaty; uncertainty about the security of the Sinai; uncertainty surrounding the speed with which Iran marches toward a nuclear bomb; and uncertainty about the number of rockets being stockpiled by Hezbollah and Hamas aimed at the homes of Israeli citizens.

But there is one thing that must never be uncertain: America's support for Israel. A threat to Israel's security or legitimacy is a threat to America, and we will not stand by and let Israel face these challenges alone. Upon her founding over six decades ago, the United States was the first Nation to recognize Israel. And since that recognition, the special bond between Israel and the U.S. has only grown stronger on the bedrock of the mutual principles of freedom, justice, and peace. Now is the time to stand with our old friend and lead the way to peace.

It is moments like these that test our mettle. It is moments like these that are recorded in our history books. And it is moments like these where we must show our leadership.

America must do everything in its power to end this perilous Palestinian bid for unilateral statehood and get direct negotiations between the two parties back on track. And President Abbas must know there will be consequences for choosing the path of confrontation over that of negotiation.

The course to unilateral recognition is not free. The Israeli- Palestinian peace process is at a pivotal crossroad. The Palestinians can choose to pursue the dead-end track toward U.N. recognition, or they can adjust their course in their wrongheaded U.N. bid and sit down at the negotiating table with Israel. The choice is theirs. It's not too late to choose the path toward peace.