Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Alderman Patrick J. Levar on his recent retirement from his position as Alderman of the 45th Ward of the City of Chicago.

For the last 24 years, Alderman Levar represented the residents of the 45th Ward and worked to bring many improvements to the schools, businesses, and safety of his constituency. One of his many accomplishments as Alderman was the building of a new police station for the 16th District--Chicago Police Department to ensure that the 45th Ward was one of the safest in Chicago. He brought over $7 million in improvements to local neighborhood schools and built the first new library on Chicago's northwest side. He returned over $1 million to the 45th Ward by improving parks, playgrounds, and local streets.

He also wanted to make sure his ward thrived economically and worked tirelessly to rejuvenate businesses and create jobs by helping build shopping complexes and business structures. His dedication to his job and the city he loves is an example of why Chicago is known as ``The City That Works.''

Alderman Levar is very proud of the northwest side of Chicago, the area he has called home for his entire life, and of the Jefferson Park neighborhood, the area where he and his wife have raised their family.

Pat would be the first to tell you that his family is his first priority, and they have provided support for his entire career. He has been happily married for 37 years to his wonderful wife, Mary Ann. His family also includes his son, Patrick, Jr., and his wife, Jeanene, his daughters, Michelle and Julie, his son, Ryan, and his grandchildren, Patrick, Clare, and Maeve.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Alderman Levar's years of service to the City of Chicago. I hope that his dedication and hard work inspire us all to see the difference we can make by serving our local communities. I wish him a happy and successful retirement and all the best in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Vi Daley, Alderman of Chicago's 43d Ward. After twelve years serving Lincoln Park and the Near North area, Alderman Daley retired this year.

Even before her election, Alderman Daley was extremely involved in the Lincoln Park community for nearly thirty-two years and brought many great improvements to it. She redeveloped the Cummings Playground across the street from the Lincoln Park Zoo, which is now the most frequently used park in the Chicago-land area. She also worked with schools and residents of the 43d Ward to promote more participation in local school activities and create early childhood education programs.

Alderman Daley also focused on improving communication between the residents and city council representatives. She provided better street- cleaning schedules and pedestrian friendly streets. Alderman Daley voted to keep her residents safe, such as restricting petitioners from harassing women who enter family planning clinics in Chicago. She also promoted preservation of unique and old buildings within the 43d Ward.

Mr. Speaker, Alderman Vi Daley has brought great improvements and wise decisions to the city of Chicago and the 43d Ward. I would like to commend and thank Alderman Daley for her hard work and concern for the residents of her Ward. I wish her well in her retirement as she spends time with her husband Vince and two daughters Kathleen and Colleen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Helen Shiller, Alderman of Chicago's 46th Ward. After 24 years of hard work and great service, she has decided to retire.

As Alderman, Helen was very responsive to the community she represented and worked continually to improve life in the 46th Ward. She introduced recycling programs to residential and commercial high- rises, helped foster economic and job growth, assisted senior citizens by placing CTA shelters near their buildings and simplified the application process for senior sewer rebates. She strived to make Chicago an easier place to live by creating affordable housing programs.

Alderman Shiller welcomed the diversity that makes up the 46th Ward and worked hard to make sure all aspects of her constituency were represented in City Council. In 1990, she passed an anti-apartheid ordinance and in 1992, tripled the City's funding budget for those living with HIV/AIDS. Alderman Shiller believed the best way to govern was to listen, and by doing so she was able to fairly represent her residents.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to recognize Alderman Helen Shiller for her 24 years of dedicated service to the 46th Ward of Chicago. I thank Alderman Shiller and wish her luck on all her future endeavors.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012.

More specifically, I rise in fierce opposition to provisions of this bill which seek to deter and derail the repeal of Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell.

A repeal, which has been implemented only after the Department of Defense completed a comprehensive review of the issues associated with the repeal.

A repeal, which has been implemented only after DOD solicited the views of nearly 400,000 active duty and reserve component Servicemembers.

A repeal, which has been implemented only after DOD conducted one of the largest surveys in the history of the U.S. military.

Still, we stand here today to consider a measure that demonstrates that this body doesn't believe that Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are right to support the repeal.

I believe in our military's ability to evaluate and make recommendations, and I fully support their plan to implement repeal.

I urge my colleagues to do the same and oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I fear that lost amidst the controversy surrounding recent statements on the Israel- Palestinian peace process, lost amidst the hopeful events of the Arab Spring, and lost amidst Syrian sanctions and military action in Libya, lies the real and greatest threat to the entire region: a nuclear Iran.

As we debate the trajectory of America's policy in the Middle East, we must never forget that as we speak, Iran is hurtling toward a nuclear weapon. A nuclear Iran would destabilize the entire region, upend the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, set off an arms race, and expose our closest friend and ally, Israel, to grave danger. The threat is real. As Prime Minister Netanyahu noted yesterday morning, they could put a bomb anywhere: on a missile, a ship, in a suitcase, or on a subway.

Last year we implemented strong sanctions against Iran, but more must

be done to close loopholes, ensure enforcement, and take additional steps to stop a nuclear Iran. No matter the challenges that arise in the Middle East, we must never lose sight of the most dangerous threat of all, a nuclear armed Iran.

Mr. Speaker, on May 11th, my vote on rollcall No. 309 was incorrectly recorded as ``aye,'' when I intended to vote ``no.'' I did not see the error until it was too late. I ask that the record reflect my strong opposition to H.R. 1229 and my intention to vote no on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Anthony Psaromatis, District Manager of the Chicago Social Security Administration, Northwest Office. After over 45 years of service and numerous awards for his dedication and commitment to public service, Mr. Psaromatis will be retiring on May 31, 2011.

Mr. Psaromatis has worked in offices around the Nation and around the world. He began his career in 1965 in Huntington, West Virginia. Throughout the years, Mr. Psaromatis also worked in various offices in Ohio, Baltimore, MD and also provided Social Security benefits overseas in Athens, Greece and Frankfurt, Germany. In 1990, Mr. Psaromatis returned to the United States to continue public service work in the Chicago Northwest Social Security Office. He has served the Jefferson Park community for nearly 21 years.

As District Manager, Mr. Psaromatis has made an enormous impact on the community. He did so by giving speeches about Social Security benefits and programs at airports, business and community centers. In order to establish guidelines on how to best serve the public, Mr. Psaromatis met with Congressional and Senatorial Aides. He has also fought for the large Polish population in Jefferson Park to provide better resources.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a deeply grateful community and with enormous appreciation for decades of dedication to public service and providing assistance to communities in America and overseas, I thank Mr. Anthony Psaromatis for his extraordinary leadership and selfless commitment to his family and staff at the Chicago Northwest Social Security Office. Thank you, Tony, and we wish you, Martha, your sons, Michael and Anthony, daughter-in-law Bridget, and granddaughters, Kallie and Kirie all the happiness in the future.

Mr. Speaker, on May 11th, my vote on Rollcall vote No. 309 was incorrectly recorded as ``aye'', when I intended to vote ``nay''. I did not see the error until it was too late. I ask that the record reflect my strong opposition to H.R. 1229 and my intention to vote no on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1229 and H.R. 1230.

We like to stand on this floor and talk about the things we can't agree on.

On this issue, there's more common ground than you might think.

We all seek to end our dependence on foreign oil because it endangers our environment, hurts our economy and weakens our national security.

Our disagreement lies in potential solutions.

In order to lower gas prices we can and must crack down on oil speculators, end big oil handouts, invest in public transit and electric vehicles and increase corporate average fuel economy standards.

The other side of the argument, the one that is presented today and that we will be voting on, would have you believe that all we need to do is increase our domestic oil resources and remove regulations.

Regulations that have purportedly forced us to look outside our nation's borders for oil.

Our answers do not lie in more oil--our answers lie in conservation and smart investments.

They do not lie in increasing our oil supply, because, let's face it, oil prices are based on a global market, and one nod from OPEC would make any increase in U.S. domestic supplies irrelevant.

Our answers cannot be found by damaging the ecosystems the industries along our coast rely on.

And, our answers will not be solutions that defy our military experts who are saying oil ain't the answer.

Earlier this week, I offered an amendment that was not made in order by the Rules Committee--an amendment that said we must look at the damage we could incur before we extract oil and gas.

This same common sense must be applied to our energy plan.

We can proactively move our nation toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil so that we take control of our energy future, protect our nation, our economy and our environment--and we must.

But, these are not our solutions.

Mr. Speaker, in the great debate over oil and gas prices, there are actually many things we can all agree on. We agree our dependence on foreign oil endangers our environment, hurts our economy, and weakens our national security. Our disagreement lies in potential solutions.

I believe that in order to lower gas prices, we can and must crack down on oil speculators, end Big Oil handouts, invest in public transit and electric vehicles, and increase corporate average fuel economy standards. The other side of the argument would have you believe that all we need to do is increase our domestic oil resources and remove regulations--regulations that purportedly forced us to look outside our Nation's borders for oil.

Our answers do not lie in more oil. Our answers lie in conservation and smart investments.

Talk about smart investment--every increase of 1 mile per gallon in auto fuel efficiency yields more oil than can be found in two Arctic National Wildlife Refuges. An improvement right now of 2.7 miles per gallon would eliminate our need for all Persian Gulf oil.

But it's not a question of simple domestic supply and demand either, another argument the other side of this issue will use. Oil prices are set on a global oil market. Historically, such small increases in U.S. production have had little or no impact on world oil prices.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration, or EIA, states in a 2008 report that Arctic Refuge oil production ``is not expected to have a large impact on world oil prices,'' noting that OPEC ``could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR coastal plain production by reducing its exports by an equal amount.''

Again, our answer does not lie in increased domestic oil production. Our answer lies in conservation and in a solid commitment to investment in renewable energy resources.

Recent increases in conservation and use of alternative technologies has cut our Nation's projected need for imported oil between now and 2050 by more than 100 billion barrels. That's 10 times more benefit that we might be able to get during the same period from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, without sacrificing one of our Nation's most valued wilderness ecosystems.

In the past few years, we've taken small steps to focus on conservation rather than production. In late 2007, corporate average fuel standards, commonly known as CAFE standards, received their first overhaul in more than 30 years. This was a huge step in the right direction, but there remains much work to do.

The bills we will consider in the coming week will endanger our environment, hurt our economy, and weaken our national security. It seems to me these are the very same concerns we have with an overarching reliance and addiction to foreign oil.

H.R. 1229 and H.R. 1230 supplant our national environmental policies, tell residents along our coasts we don't care how they feel about drilling in their waters, damage the ecosystems the industries along our coasts rely on, and go against what military experts have been saying about drilling.

Just weeks ago, several former military officers shared their thoughts and concern. ``America's dependence on oil constitutes a clear and present danger to the security and welfare of the United States.'' And they continue to say they are concerned with congressional efforts to undermine the agencies charged with overseeing extraction. What they are saying is it's important to reduce our dependence on foreign oil for our national security's sake, and it's important to retain regulatory authority to oversee drilling and extraction of oil and gas. Then, you follow that it's important to regulate our extraction in order to protect our Nation.

These bills do not offer solutions. And what is worse, a full year following the disaster of the Macondo/Deepwater well, we have yet to reform our Outer Continental Shelf policy. But, again, you don't need to take my word for it.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration put out a 2009 report comparing the difference between full, unrestricted offshore drilling and restricted offshore drilling. EIA found that in 2020, restrictions on drilling versus unrestricted access had no impact on cost. The cost per barrel was identical. In 2030, indiscriminate drilling would lower our gas prices by just 3 cents.

Take the calls for drilling in the Arctic Refuge as another example. Even at peak production in 2030, Arctic Refuge oil would account for six-tenths of 1 percent of world oil production and only 2.4 percent of U.S. oil consumption.

We can proactively move our Nation toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil so that we can take control of our energy future, protect our Nation, our economy, and our environment. And we must.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3 and to remind my colleagues of two key dates.

January 20, 2011, the day H.R. 3 was introduced. Just 3 months ago, the authors of this extremist, offensive bill introduced a version of H.R. 3 that would have redefined rape and incest. They don't want us to remember, but we cannot forget 173 Members of Congress signed their names to a bill that would have redefined rape to exclude women who are unconscious, mentally disabled, or forced into sex by threat.

The authors of this bill would also like us to forget another important date: January 22, 1973. On that day, the Supreme Court ruled that women have the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies and their own lives.

But we will not forget that date, and we will not forget the 173 Members of this body who want to redefine rape and incest, and we will not turn back the clock to a time when women could not make their own choices and access vital care.

We will not forget. We will not go back, and we must not pass H.R. 3.

On the first day of this Congress, Members took turns reading the Constitution aloud on the floor of this House. It was a worthwhile exercise.

However, some parts were omitted. There was no recital of the Amendment that established prohibition or the clause requiring fugitive slaves to be returned to their owners, or the one equating slaves with three-fifths of a human being. I guess nobody wanted to be the one who was stuck reading those parts, and I can understand that.

But it got me thinking that, lately, there has been a lot of talk about the Constitution, and that's a good thing. The Constitution is our national charter. It protects our basic freedoms, it grants power to the government, and puts limits on those powers.

All of us in this body took an oath to support it. We should talk a lot about the Constitution, but we should talk about it the right way. Some of my colleagues here seem to think that all we have to do is read the Constitution together and we will all see the light; that the little words on the page will answer all of our questions. For them, the Framers had all the answers. I guess that's the real reason they didn't want to read the embarrassing parts out loud on the House floor.

To do that would be to admit that the Framers got some things wrong, that their document was a first draft of liberty, a blueprint for justice, not the last word.

Some call this way of thinking constitutional fundamentalism. When it comes to the Constitution, fundamentalism is misguided. Let me explain why.

No one doubts that some parts of the Constitution are meant to be read literally and rigidly: every State gets two Senators. You have to be at least 25 years old to be elected to Congress. Cut and dried.

But in many of the most important passages of the Constitution, the Framers deliberately used broad, open-ended language because they wanted their words to be read flexibly as times changed. Freedom of speech, due process of law--these terms don't define themselves.

The Fourth Amendment protects the right of people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Eighth Amendment outlaws cruel and unusual punishment. What makes a search unreasonable or a punishment cruel? The document itself doesn't tell us.

The constitutional fundamentalists tell us we should interpret the words of the Constitution as they were understood at the time they were written, more than 200 years ago, but they can't really mean that. At that time, all felonies were subject to the death penalty and flogging was a common punishment for crime. Today, we consider such punishments cruel and unusual.

The words the Framers chose are not just broad and open-ended. More importantly, they express basic values. To enforce basic values, you need to make value judgments. And value judgments change as the world changes, even when the underlying values stay the same. The Supreme Court has always understood this.

Almost 200 years ago, the great Chief Justice John Marshall made clear that the Court was going to read the broad phrases of the Constitution differently than it might read a tax statute or bailing code.

Marshall wrote: ``If we apply this principle of construction to any of the powers of government, we shall find it so pernicious in its operation that we shall be compelled to discard it.''

Marshall and his successors on the High Court understood that when we freeze the meaning of the Constitution in place, we limit our capacity to make progress as a people.

Progress hasn't come easy. It wasn't until the 1940s that the Court applied the First Amendment's establishment clause to State and local governments, ensuring the separation of church and State. It wasn't until the 1950s in Brown v. Board of Education that the Court declared government-sponsored racial segregation unconstitutional. Not until the 1960s did the Court finally represent the principle of one person, one vote. And not until the 1970s did the Court enforce constitutional equality for women.

If we interpreted the document in a static and literal way, we would find ourselves in a country we didn't recognize.

Constitutional fundamentalism makes difficult choices look easy by papering over the ambiguities of the document and ignoring the complexities of our history.

I would much rather acknowledge the ambiguities and debate and discuss and argue about the complexities. I think it's significant that when we amend the Constitution, we don't redact the superseded parts. Leaving them in serves as an anecdote to collective amnesia about our past mistakes; it undermines efforts to sanitize our troubled history, as many in power throughout the world often do with their own history.

I close with the words of Thomas Jefferson: ``Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable of taking care of itself, and ordering its own affairs.''

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the legacy of Dr. Jose Rizal in celebration of the 150th anniversary of his birth on June 19, 1861. His writings and dedication to his country continue to inspire Filipinos, who widely regard him as the national hero of the Philippines. His allegiance to his homeland resonates with Filipino- Americans, and stirs a renewed patriotism in the hearts of all Americans.

A doctor, philosopher, historian, and artist, Dr. Rizal is best known for his influential writings during the Philippine struggle for independence. Born in the Philippine province of Laguna in 1861, he traveled throughout the world for his studies and medical practice, earning degrees from universities in the Philippines and Europe. While studying in Spain in 1887, he wrote two novels, Noli Me Tangere and its sequel II Filibusterismo, depicting the Filipinos' devotion to their country and yearning for freedom from colonial rule. These works inspired the struggle for independence in the Philippines but also placed Rizal's life in danger of persecution by the ruling government.

Eager to be of service to his country's cause, Dr. Rizal returned to the Philippines in 1892. Upon his return, he was exiled to the South of the Philippines. Despite great struggles, he sought to improve the lives of those around him by building a medical clinic, conducting religious classes, and teaching agricultural practices. Four years later, as the Philippine Revolution began to strengthen, he was convicted of inciting the rebellion with his writings and was sentenced to death. On the eve of his execution, Dr. Rizal wrote Mi Ultimo adios, a poem bidding farewell to his beloved country, attesting to his dedication to seeking a free and independent country.

Dr. Rizal's legacy lives on in his writings, and Filipinos throughout the world remember him as the idealistic force behind their struggle for independence. He fought for his country not with the sword, but with the peaceful power of his ideas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Dr. Jose Rizal. We remember his legacy in honor of the Filipino-Americans in our communities. May his legacy continue to instill in all of us a renewed dedication to serving our country.

Mr. Speaker, on the 85th anniversary of its founding, I rise today to honor and recognize the outstanding impact that the Shriners Hospital for Children has had on the lives of children in Chicago. It is their mission to provide the highest quality health care to all children with orthopedic and neuromusculoskeletal conditions.

The Shriners founded their first children's hospital in Shreveport, Louisiana in 1922, and since then, their network has grown to include 21 more hospitals. The Chicago facility was founded on March 20, 1926 in the historic Oak Park District. Here, children are treated for a host of orthopedic and neuromusculoskeletal conditions, spinal cord injuries, as well as cleft lip and palate. Not only do they provide for the needs of the children, the hospital takes into account the needs of the whole family throughout all phases of the child's injury and recuperation, including free transportation to and from the hospital if necessary. Once children are accepted for treatment, they become part of the Shriners Hospital System and are provided treatment for all facets of their condition.

All care is provided by an interdisciplinary team which works together to integrate the expertise of all appropriate healthcare disciplines in one center. In addition to providing treatment for these conditions, all Shriners Hospitals for Children are dedicated to continuing research in their specific fields and discovering new knowledge to better improve the quality of the lives of their patients and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the Shriners Hospital for Children in Chicago for its dedication to providing healthcare to suffering children without regard to religion, race, nationality, disability, or ability of the family to pay. This organization provides an invaluable service to the city and has improved the lives of countless Chicago children. I thank them once again for their 85 years of exceptional services to children in need and their families.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of more than 111,000 of my constituents who are of Polish descent, I rise to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl. We remember those in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, many of whom suffered the loss of life, health, and home as a result of this tragedy.

The accident at the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl occurred on April 26, 1986, and is considered to be the most serious nuclear disaster in human history. A flawed reactor ruptured, causing a cloud of highly radioactive smoke to be spread over a wide geographic area. Unaware of the seriousness of the situation, firemen and emergency workers were summoned to the catastrophe. Many received high doses of radiation and later died as a result.

The entire town of Pripyat was forced to evacuate, and, in total, it is believed that more than 200,000 people were forced to relocate due to the Chernobyl disaster. An area of more than 150,000 square kilometers is considered to be contaminated, and the immediate area around the plant is still, for the most part, uninhabited.

This tragedy came at a huge human and environmental cost, and so it is of the utmost importance that it not be forgotten. For this reason, I would like to acknowledge the work of the Kyiv Committee of the Chicago Sister Cities International Program which is working to commemorate the anniversary of this tragedy through a program highlighting response and recovery efforts.

Mr. Speaker, on this, the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl tragedy, I invite my colleagues to remember those who suffered as a result of this disaster, as well as recognize the efforts of the Chicago Sister Cities International Program. Only by commemorating and learning from this catastrophe will we able to move forward towards a safe and productive future for nuclear energy.