Mark Kirk

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator Durbin to introduce the Great Lakes Water Protection Act. This bipartisan legislation would set a date certain to end sewage dumping in America's largest supply of fresh water, the Great Lakes. More than thirty million Americans depend on the Great Lakes for their drinking water, food, jobs, and recreation. We need to put a stop to the poisoning of our water supply. Cities along the Great Lakes must become environmental stewards of our country's most precious freshwater ecosystem. The Great Lakes Water Protection Act gives cities until 2031 to build the full infrastructure needed to prevent sewage dumping into the Great Lakes. Those who violate EPA sewage dumping regulations after that federal deadline will be subject to fines up to $100,000 for each day a violation occurs. These fines will be directed to a newly established Great Lakes Clean-Up Fund within the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Penalties collected would go into this fund and be reallocated to the states surrounding the Great Lakes. From there, the funds will be spent on wastewater treatment options, with a special focus on greener solutions such as habitat protection and wetland restoration. This legislation is sorely needed. Many major cities along the Great Lakes do not have the infrastructure needed to divert sewage overflows during times of heavy rainfall. More than twenty-four billion gallons of sewage are dumped into the Lakes each year; Detroit alone dumps an estimated 13 billion gallons of sewage into the Great Lakes annually. EPA estimates show there is a total of 347 combined sewer outflows that discharge into the Lake Michigan basin alone. This development is echoed throughout the Great Lakes region and is one we need to reverse. These disastrous practices result in thousands of annual beach closing for the region's 815 freshwater beaches. Illinois faced 628 beach closures or contamination advisories in 2009 alone, up 17 percent from 2008. This greatly affects the health of our children and families--a recent University of Chicago study showed swim bans at Chicago's beaches due to E. coli levels cost the local economy $2.4 million in lost revenue every year. Protecting our Great Lakes is one of my top priorities in the Congress. As an original sponsor of the Great Lakes Restoration Act, I favor a broad approach to addressing needs in the region. However, we must also move forward with tailored approaches to fix specific problems as we continue to push for more comprehensive reform. I am proud to introduce this important legislation that addresses a key problem facing our Great Lakes, and hope my colleagues will support me in ensuring that these important resources become free from the threat of sewage pollution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator Durbin to introduce the Great Lakes Water Protection Act. This bipartisan legislation would set a date certain to end sewage dumping in America's largest supply of fresh water, the Great Lakes. More than thirty million Americans depend on the Great Lakes for their drinking water, food, jobs, and recreation. We need to put a stop to the poisoning of our water supply. Cities along the Great Lakes must become environmental stewards of our country's most precious freshwater ecosystem. The Great Lakes Water Protection Act gives cities until 2031 to build the full infrastructure needed to prevent sewage dumping into the Great Lakes. Those who violate EPA sewage dumping regulations after that federal deadline will be subject to fines up to $100,000 for each day a violation occurs. These fines will be directed to a newly established Great Lakes Clean-Up Fund within the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Penalties collected would go into this fund and be reallocated to the states surrounding the Great Lakes. From there, the funds will be spent on wastewater treatment options, with a special focus on greener solutions such as habitat protection and wetland restoration. This legislation is sorely needed. Many major cities along the Great Lakes do not have the infrastructure needed to divert sewage overflows during times of heavy rainfall. More than twenty-four billion gallons of sewage are dumped into the Lakes each year; Detroit alone dumps an estimated 13 billion gallons of sewage into the Great Lakes annually. EPA estimates show there is a total of 347 combined sewer outflows that discharge into the Lake Michigan basin alone. This development is echoed throughout the Great Lakes region and is one we need to reverse. These disastrous practices result in thousands of annual beach closing for the region's 815 freshwater beaches. Illinois faced 628 beach closures or contamination advisories in 2009 alone, up 17 percent from 2008. This greatly affects the health of our children and families--a recent University of Chicago study showed swim bans at Chicago's beaches due to E. coli levels cost the local economy $2.4 million in lost revenue every year. Protecting our Great Lakes is one of my top priorities in the Congress. As an original sponsor of the Great Lakes Restoration Act, I favor a broad approach to addressing needs in the region. However, we must also move forward with tailored approaches to fix specific problems as we continue to push for more comprehensive reform. I am proud to introduce this important legislation that addresses a key problem facing our Great Lakes, and hope my colleagues will support me in ensuring that these important resources become free from the threat of sewage pollution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I rise to oppose the START treaty because it recognizes limits on U.S. missile defenses in return for marginal reductions in the Russian arsenal. At the moment when the U.S. and allies must build missile defenses to protect against Iran, this treaty generates Russian pressure for America to go slow or risk Russia's departure from the agreement. If you take the President's Senate missile defense letter at face value, then America would deploy defenses that will trigger a Russian treaty exit. I am concerned that to prevent a Russian treaty withdrawal, the United States will move slower on building defenses against Iran just when we need to move faster. The most important duty of the Federal Government is to defend Americans against foreign attack, and the most important mission under that duty is to protect American families from the most dangerous nations that could carry out such an attack. In the mid-20th century, we agreed that the Soviet Union represented a clear and present danger to America. Our Cold War Presidents--Truman through Clinton, Republicans and Democrats--backed policies of a strong defense, with alliances with our friends and diplomacy with the Soviets. But much has changed since the 20th century ended over a decade ago. While the Russians still have an impressive arsenal, they are shadows of their former shadow, dropping from 290 million people to 140 million people and from a gross domestic product of $2.6 trillion in 1990 to $2.1 trillion in 2010. The nuclear national security threat for the new 21st century moved beyond Russia to include Iran and North Korea, soon to be armed with nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. While the Russians are heavily armed, they present a relatively stable face to the outside world. They have the capability to attack, but they currently lack the intent. On any given year, their leaders appear adverse to risk and unready to commit national suicide. The same cannot be said for Iran, North Korea, and other nations that present a far less rational face to the international community. Looking at such potentially irresponsible leaders, it is incumbent on us to go beyond idealistic diplomacy and mount a defense against an attack which may be leveled against our people or our allies. The lives of millions and the cause of freedom depend on our assessment of this threat and how we respond. Recall that nuclear technology represents the science of the 1930s, missile technology from the 1960s. Since the laws of physics cannot be classified, countries bad and good will all one day have the means to develop powerful arsenals based on the last century's science. It is the sacred mission of the democracies to understand this change, to measure its danger, and to eliminate an attack should one of these smaller, less rational countries attack. In such an environment, an agreement to limit the nuclear arms of the United States and Russia is helpful but does not concern the new danger emerging against the people of the West. If we can lower nuclear arms to levels where we still maintain a devastating counterpunch against a rational opponent who is uninterested in national suicide, then a nuclear war with that country remains unlikely and the cost of our armaments is reduced. If that agreement also causes us not to build defenses against an irrational opponent who may attack anyway, then we have committed a grievous national error. I initially favored the goals of the START treaty. The treaty is an echo from the 20th century and had a marginal utility in improving the defense of the United States. Unfortunately, the negotiations to produce this treaty took a turn that was not well perceived by the press or public. The Russians used these negotiations intended to improve the defense of the United States as a means to preserve their ability to attack. Surprisingly, American negotiators formalized a link in the protocol between limiting defenses against missile attack and maintaining forces to carry out such a strike. Perversely, this agreement now stands for two principles: No. 1, the United States and Russia should reduce their nuclear arms, on which we all agree, and No. 2, the United States should recognize policies to maintain the viability of a Russian attack. This second principle turns the purpose of the treaty on its head. It weakens the future defense of our Nation. The treaty would support a policy that we must not improve our defenses to such a degree as to defeat a Russian attack. Much of this has had little impact on actual defense plans regarding Russia. Russia presents a relatively stable, status quo face to the international community. It also maintains a nuclear force which would quickly overwhelm any planned system of defense. But a policy of limiting missile defense has a tremendous impact on our ability to thwart an attack from less responsible powers, such as Iran or North Korea. Given the actions of Iranian and North Korean leaders, I would argue these countries represent the more important danger to the future of the United States and our allies in this new century. In the 20th century, the argument about the defense of the Nation against an attack by missiles took on a divided and partisan tone. President Reagan proposed ``missile defense,'' while congressional Democrats opposed ``Star Wars.'' Much of the disagreement ended in the late 1980s and 1990s when Iraq attacked Iran and then Israel with missiles. Over time, careful observers noted that missile defense was important not just to the health of Israel but to its survival. When Russia attacked Georgia, it used a great number of missiles to deliver blows against that little country. As this century winds on, more countries will see these realities of the 21st century, eventually including the United States. The administration's unsteady missile defense plans also concern me. I am concerned about the missile defense actions taken by the current administration. When it took office, it cancelled plans to enhance the missile defenses of the United States itself that were based in Alaska and California. To the great embarrassment of our allies in the Czech Republic and Poland, it cancelled plans to deploy radars and two-stage ground-based interceptors (GBIs). I would note that history has been unkind to Western leaders that abandon Poland. The administration also began an effort to cancel funding for the ``Arrow III'' interceptor being jointly developed with Israel. Thanks to the late Chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Committee, Jack Murtha, the effort to kill Arrow III was reversed and full-funding came to the Arrow III program despite the President's early wishes. Once the negative reaction of our hurt Polish allies was known, the administration responded with a four-part plan to calm Europe using systems inferior to the GBI anti-missiles originally proposed by the last administration and current Secretary of defense. The inartfully coined European ``Phased-Adaptive'' approach involved anti-aircraft systems patched together in a rather ad hoc fashion. We now plan to begin by sailing U.S. Navy Aegis cruisers near European coasts followed by a decade and the possible deployment of a to-be-built Navy missile interceptor that does not yet exist, called the ``Standard Missile 3, block IIA''. I contacted our Missile Defense Agency and asked if the originally planned GBIs for Poland could have stopped an attack by Iran against the United States. They answered yes. We checked if any one of the new ``Phased-Adaptive'' stages could stop a similar intercontinental attack by Iran against the U.S. They answered Phase I could not, Phase II could not, and Phase III could not. In fact the only phase that could engage a missile launched by Iran against the U.S. was not until Phase IV by the IIB missile that did not yet exist that would be deployed far later than the original GBIs proposed. The problem goes deeper. I asked the MDA to compare the capabilities of the originally proposed two-stage GBIs to hit an Iranian missile against the future final Phase IV SM-3 JIB. The MDA replied with this graph. It shows that the original, longer range GBIs would have a full 4-minute window to hit and destroy an incoming Iranian missile bound for New York City. The SM-3 IIB, which has a shorter range, would have only 3 minutes. In short, the administration's new proposed missile has 25 percent less time to defeat an incoming Iranian attack than the originally proposed missile. No wonder our Polish allies supported the original plan. I worry that some of these changes were made to curry favor with the Russians. I am concerned that the preamble to the START treaty would be used to reduce or block the efforts of the Congress to upgrade the defenses of the United States. In short, I am worried that while this treaty reduces the smaller threat of attack by Russia, it creates a Russian block for plans to eliminate the larger threat from Iran. The Russians clearly stated that if we mount defenses that could defeat their attack, they would pull out of the treaty. The problem is that to eliminate the threat from Iran and North Korea, we will have to do so. In this case, what is the value of the treaty? It clearly helps the Russians but if it blocks or delays our effort to protect against Iran, does it help us? I am also concerned with other aspects of this treaty, like an end to full-time compliance monitoring inside Russia. There are also details of the treaty itself that concern me. Under previous treaties, the United States had a full-time monitoring presence in Votkinsk. This was eliminated. We will no longer have full- time monitors in Russia. Also, an end to telemetry from new Russian missiles. Under previous treaties, the United States and Russia shared all the information transmitted by their test missiles in flight, called telemetry. While our spy satellites, planes and ships can gather some of this information, there is nothing like getting it straight from the missile's mouth. Telemetry is key to understanding the capability of a new missile, especially its maneuvers to drop off one or more nuclear warheads. Under this new treaty, this data was lost. The Russians will not provide telemetry from their new missiles under this treaty. Their only obligation is to share telemetry from five missile flights a year and they will likely pick old missiles to do this. We are told we lost the capability to collect the telemetry of new Russian missiles because while the Russians are developing many new models, we are not. Given that telemetry would report mainly on new Russian developments and not American, our negotiators gave up. They should not have given up. The collection of telemetry from new Russian missiles had long been enshrined in arms control treaties. This precedent was well established and should have been continued. There are inspections, but only 18 per year. We are told that the new treaty will offer the unprecedented inspection of actual missile warheads. This is true. Under the old treaties, we simply counted the number of missiles the Russians had using our spy satellites and assumed each missile was packed with as many warheads as the missile's flight tests and telemetry showed. Now we will get to inspect actual missiles--but only 18 per year. The Russians have hundreds. At the rate the treaty allows, the full inspection of the Russian arsenal of 800 launchers would take over 40 years. I asked administration officials how many hours notice the Russians would have before Americans conducted an actual warhead inspection. In all cases, they would have 24 hours or more notice that the Americans were coming. After extensive briefings on Russian cheating against previous arms control treaties--most flagrantly the treaty banning biological weapons--it should give you pause that the United States gave up collecting telemetry on the flight of every Russian missile in return for the inspection of 10 missiles per year and that only after a full day's notice. We are also told that this treaty is needed to improve Russian international behavior. In my view, a treaty should only be signed to reward good behavior, not to encourage it later. I was most inclined to support the intent of this treaty to improve relations between the United States and Russia on the subject of collapsing the Iranian regime and its nuclear weapons program. Undoubtedly, the administration earned good marks in getting the Russians to cancel the delivery of one key piece of air defense equipment--an anti-aircraft missile battery called the S-300--to Iran. This was an unqualified success. Unfortunately, there are many more failures where the press paid little note. We believe the Russians are still delivering other pieces of air defense equipment to the Iranians. That is why the Russians insisted on exempting such deliveries from the new U.N. sanctions against Iran. Russian equipment will likely be used to defend Iran's nuclear sites, the very programs we are most worried about that violate Iran's commitment to the U.N. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. What is most surprising is the actions of the Russians since the negotiation of this treaty. They know we, the Europeans and Israelis are most worried about the nuclear program of Iran. Despite these well- publicized concerns and numerous U.N. resolutions against the Iranian nuclear program, the Russians chose this year and this country to provide nuclear fuel to the Iranian reactor at Bushehr. As that Russian reactor begins operation, plutonium production will begin inside Iran. While the Russians promise that the Iranians will not be able to use this plutonium in Iranian bombs, can we be assured that these promises will be honored? Would not it have been better to never begin plutonium production in Iran at all? I am also concerned about new ideas coming from the administration on missile defense and the Russians. Long ago, President Clinton proposed U.S-Russian cooperation in space. That cooperation led to a dependence so that soon, the U.S. will lack any way to launch astronauts. We cannot send our own astronauts to our own space station without the permission of the Russians. In discussions regarding this treaty, I learned that the administration is now planning to bring the Russians inside the missile defenses of NATO. Russia is the very nation that used missiles to attack Georgia--a country applying for membership in NATO. I am sure the Georgians would be uncomfortable at best seeing Russians manage the missile defense of their little nation. The U.S. offer to bring the Russians into NATO's missile defenses was embodied in an offer at the recent NATO conference in Lisbon. Nearly all Americans are fully aware of Russian spying against the United States military for the last 70 years. We know that Russia has one of the most active cyber-attack networks on the planet operating against U.S. networks. It would seem that a proposal to bring the Russians into the missile defense system of NATO would introduce powerful new opportunities for espionage against us, as well as a greater understanding of our defense capabilities and weaknesses. Imagine a Russian officer in a NATO missile defense center. He will soon learn when our system is alerted, how it processes information, what our response times are and the estimated accuracy of our interceptors. These are the things he would learn during his first week inside our operations center. We can only imagine what else he would learn over the coming years. Remember that the warning information from NATO is critical to the defense of the United States. If the Russians managed to spoof or block critical NATO missile warning data, then U.S. commanders defending our homeland would become weaker, not stronger due to Russian presence in NATO missile defense centers. Recall that missile combat is the ultimate ``come as you are'' affair. In a struggle between continents, the battle will be joined within 30 minutes. When submarine or medium-range missiles are employed, battle can start in as little as 10 minutes. If we have Russians in the system who found American weaknesses or deployed problems, U.S. commanders will have only minutes to diagnose and fix those problems before the gravest consequences befall our people and allies. The next Congress will favor missile defense programs to a far greater degree than this one. I plan to encourage this body and especially the House with legislation to deny funding for any effort to bring Russians into the missile defenses of NATO or the United States. I respect the opinions of Senators on both sides of this question. It is my judgment that safety of the American people is better off if we work to eliminate the new dangers of the 21st century rather than focus on the old agreements of the 20th century. In my view, the growing dangers of Iran and North Korea threaten the American people most. Therefore, the missile defense programs of the United States and our allies take precedence over an agreement whose protocol limits our defenses by acknowledging the need to preserve the ability of Russia to attack the United States. While most of us were born in the 20th century and we loved black and white TV, the ``Ed Sullivan Show'' and the ``Honeymooners,'' we recognize that time has passed and we must adapt to the new world of the Internet, Ipad and Ichat. The 20th century doctrine of nuclear Mutually Assured Destruction against the Soviet Union is part of our past and not part of a future involving Taepo Dong II missiles from North Korea and Shahab III missiles from Iran. I would urge the administration to devote the time and attention of our able diplomats to ending the Iranian nuclear program rather than this agreement that, while laudable in its very modest goals, went awry at the negotiating table. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam President, almost 30 years ago, I worked in the House of Commons in London. In Parliament, a new member's maiden speech is given great weight. Traditionally, this speech is used to highlight what a member's priorities are and sets the tone for his tenure. My experience in London guided my thoughts 10 years ago when I was elected to the House of Representatives. My maiden speech focused on the unique political history of the 10th Congressional District of Illinois and its tradition of electing thoughtful, independent leaders. As I stand here today, newly elected by the people of Illinois to represent their interests in the U.S. Senate, I recall my first speech in the House and how humbled I was to follow such a distinguished group of men and women in office. I am equally humbled as I assume the office of United States Senator from Illinois. Since our admission to the Union in 1818, Illinois has sent a diverse list of Senators to this Chamber. Many of my predecessors served in uniform valiantly, others had brilliant legal careers, while still others excelled in international diplomacy. As I take office, I want to reflect on those who represented Illinois in the Senate before me, their accomplishments, and the imprint they left on our great Nation. One name hangs above all others. He never served in the Senate but ran for the office in 1858. Abraham Lincoln was defeated in that election but won the Nation's support for a higher office during the Lincoln-Douglas debates. His story also reminds the Republican and Democratic opponents of the current Members of the Senate that their best days in public life may still be ahead. With regard to our Senators, one of the first was Ninian Edwards, a pioneer at a time when Illinois was actually the frontier. First elected in 1818, he served until 1824, when he stepped down to become the United States' Minister to Mexico. He had the distinction of being the Governor of both the territory and State of Illinois. A true servant of the people, he died in 1833, while he helped treat victims of a cholera epidemic carried by soldiers serving in the Black Hawk War. Senator James Shields reminded us that we are a State and Nation of immigrants. Born in Ireland, he became a naturalized citizen in 1840. He served in the Mexican-American war under General Zachary Taylor, commanding a brigade in the battles of Vera Cruz, Cerro Gordo, Contreras, Churubusco, and Chapultepec. Already one of America's leading Irish-Americans, Brigadier General Shields would later command a division during the Civil War, taking his men against Stonewall Jackson in the Valley Campaign of 1862. He was twice elected to the Senate in 1849--first in March, and again in October. But his first election was voided on the grounds that he had not yet been a U.S. citizen for the required 9 years. Eight months later, he won election again and finally was seated. Senator Shields is the only Member of this body to have served in the Senate from three States--in addition to Illinois, he was elected in Minnesota and Missouri. Senator Shields also nearly changed the course of our Nation. In 1842, a young Abraham Lincoln wrote an anonymous letter to the Sangamon Journal criticizing then State Auditor Shields for his decision to require the payment of taxes in silver or gold. When Lincoln's future wife, Mary Todd, and her friend got into the act by writing additional missives, Shields asked the editor to reveal the identity of the letter writers. When Lincoln claimed responsibility for all the letters, Shields demanded satisfaction and challenged Lincoln to a duel. Lincoln chose broadswords as the weapon of choice, and the two made plans to travel to Missouri as dueling in Illinois was illegal at the time. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed and the duel was called off, averting a potentially history-changing event. Serving from 1847 to 1861, Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas was known as the ``little giant'' due to his short stature but powerful hold on the Senate. While accomplished, he was overshadowed by Lincoln despite Lincoln's loss to Douglas in the 1858 Senate election. Douglas served as the architect of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 that repealed the Missouri Compromise, allowing settlers in Kansas and Nebraska to determine whether or not they would allow slavery. Douglas's reputation waned in later years as he led the Democratic Party to defeat in the election of 1860 by defending slavery in the southern States. His miscalculation dealt a blow to the ruling Democrats, allowing the new antislavery Republican Party to win the White House. Another Illinois Senator, David Davis, holds a unique distinction, having served as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court prior to his Senate service. In his nearly 15 years on the Court, Davis is best known for writing the decision in Ex Parte Milligan, holding that a death sentence handed down by a Civil War military commission against a civilian was unconstitutional, as civilian courts were functioning at the time. The Illinois Legislature elected Davis to the Senate in the midst of the disputed 1876 presidential election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. Because of his service on the Supreme Court and his long reputation for fierce independence, Senator Davis was elected President pro tempore of the Senate following the assassination of President Garfield. Under the law at the time, this placed him next in the line of succession to President Chester A. Arthur, even though he was a freshman Senator. One of our greatest Senators was the ``man from Pekin,'' Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, who served for nearly 20 years in the middle of the 20th Century. His leadership was apparent early in his life. During the First World War, he entered service in the field artillery as a private and left a second lieutenant. While in the Senate, he worked his way to lead his party as Minority Leader and developed a reputation as a pragmatic, thoughtful legislator. He is perhaps best known for his role in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was Dirksen who said on the floor of the Senate: The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied. It is here! It was Dirksen who helped gather the votes for cloture on the ground- breaking legislation, ending the longest filibuster in Senate history at 534 hours, 1 minute, and 51 seconds. If there is one of our Illinois Senators whose spirit hangs closest to me as I begin my service here, it is Dirksen's. Senator Dirksen's reputation as a fiscal conservative and a social moderate is one I hope to follow in my service in the Senate. He died after a bout with cancer in 1969, but his legacy lives on. One of the three Senate office buildings bears his name, as well as Chicago's federal courthouse. Senator Charles Percy entered the Senate in 1967, serving alongside Senator Dirksen for 2 years. He was a ``Rockefeller Republican,'' representing the moderate wing of the Republican Party in the Senate and went on to chair the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In addition to his work on foreign relations, he worked on legislation to provide home ownership to low-income families. Senator Percy and I also share a similar background. Both he and I are graduates of New Trier High School in Winnetka, IL, and we also both served in the United States Navy. Senator Percy's greatest legacy for Illinois was his work to eliminate the corrupt practice of nominating Federal judges from the Chicago political machine. I wish to follow in Percy's footsteps, by ensuring all judicial nominations go through a rigorous advisory process. Alan Dixon served Illinois in the Senate from 1981 to 1993, but before he came to Washington, he served in both the Illinois House and Senate, and later won statewide elections for treasurer and secretary of state. He earned a reputation as a thoughtful, moderate Senator who served the people of Illinois with a quiet dedication. After leaving the Senate, he went on to chair the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission in 1994 and 1995. Born in Eugene, OR, Senator Paul Simon served from 1985-1997 as a staunch fiscal ``pay-as-you-go'' Democrat. Simon worked with Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah on a balanced budget amendment that, although unsuccessful at the time, deserves renewed attention now in light of our crippling Federal debt. Although he did not win the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988, his greatest legacy will be the creation of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University where he served as director until his death in 2003 following heart surgery. Senator Carol Moseley Braun is a true daughter of Chicago. She was born in the city, attended Chicago public schools, and received degrees from the University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Chicago. She remains today the only African-American woman to serve in the Senate. After she left the Senate she served as Ambassador to New Zealand, and she remains committed to public service, as she is currently running for Mayor of Chicago. Senator Peter Fitzgerald came to Washington 2 years before I began service in the House. I was honored to serve in the Illinois delegation with him for 4 years. When I took the oath of office here in the Senate, it was with Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Durbin at my side, recognizing that leadership for our State requires a firm commitment to bipartisanship. Senator Fitzgerald was born in Elgin and raised in Inverness. He represented the northwest suburbs in the Illinois State Senate before his election to the U.S. Senate. Senator Fitzgerald's legacy in Illinois will forever be remembered for bringing one of our Nation's most dedicated crime fighters to our State. Senator Fitzgerald is the reason why the Northern District of Illinois is home to one of the best prosecutors in America, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Patrick Fitzgerald, who is of no relation to the Senator, has done more to fight public corruption in our State than any other person. Senator Peter Fitzgerald fought a tough battle to recruit and appoint Patrick Fitzgerald. Before his arrival, Illinois was the wild west of politics, and one of the most corrupt in the Nation. Under his tenure, U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald convicted two Governors of corruption and countless other State and local officials. We will forever live with the embarrassment of convicted criminals like Governor Blagojevich, but with the leadership of Senator Peter Fitzgerald, we found the right prosecutor to slowly restore integrity and honesty to our State. Now I have spoken about the past greats who have represented Illinois in the Senate, but our recent Senators have been champions in their own rights. I am honored to call Senator Dick Durbin my colleague, and while we hail from different parties, we have pledged to work closely on issues that will benefit the people of our State. He, like me, came to this body from the House and quickly became known as a champion of infrastructure improvements, including the critical O'Hare Modernization Program and mass transit. His knowledge of the process of government is unmatched, and he is quick to tell tales of his time as the parliamentarian for the Illinois General Assembly. His father died of lung cancer when he was 14, and he has since fought tirelessly to protect kids from tobacco. We fly in smoke-free airlines because of Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois. Recognizing his leadership, his caucus has voted to make him majority whip the past 4 years, one of the few Senators from Illinois to hold such a position of distinction. This brings me to perhaps one of the best-known Senators, and the man whose term I complete--Barack Obama. The first time I had heard of now- President Obama was in Springfield, IL, in 2000. I was filing petitions to run for my first term in the House, and in front of me in line was a young staffer who worked for a State senator from Chicago who was running for Congress. It is highly ironic that I won my election that year, as state senator Obama lost his, but 10 years later Illinois had its favorite son in the White House. Despite the media spotlight upon him, then-Senator Obama sought out a low initial profile in the Senate and worked with Senator Durbin and the rest of our congressional delegation to quietly advance some projects. While his tenure in this body was brief, he and I successfully worked together to secure Federal school funding for military families in north Chicago, IL, fulfilling an important promise to take care of those who take care of us. In 2008, Barack Obama was elected the first African-American President of the United States, creating a vacancy that was filled by Roland Burris. It was the greatest honor of my life to win election to both Senator Obama's unexpired term and a full six-year term. As I enter the Senate and open a new chapter in the rich history of this body, I stand before you a fiscal conservative, a social moderate, and a national security hawk. I bring a commitment to fiscal responsibility, spending restraint, lower taxes, tolerance, a strong national defense, and, above all, thoughtful, independent leadership. Today, we face great challenges both here and abroad. Here at home, runaway spending and unsustainable borrowing threaten the future of our economy. Unemployment remains high, economic growth slow, and small business employers are crippled by the tax and regulation decisions of an ever-growing government. As we look abroad, our challenges are no less complex. We remain a nation at war with a terrorist enemy that seeks our destruction. As America winds down our mission in Iraq, our mission in Afghanistan grows more challenging by the day. Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons, as terrorists in Gaza and Lebanon threaten the security of our strongest ally in the Middle East. At home and abroad, our country faces threats from Iran, North Korea, and a number of terrorist cells based in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere. In times of great uncertainty, we need to come together--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--to build consensus, find solutions, and meaningfully improve the lives of the people we represent. In that spirit, I look forward to working with our senior Senator, Senator Durbin, to complete the O'Hare Modernization Project, ban sewage dumping in the Great Lakes, and expand high-speed rail across Illinois. From Rockford to Cairo, we will work to expand employment and opportunity wherever possible--always seeking practical, bipartisan solutions to the everyday challenges facing families across Illinois. I am confident we can build a bipartisan, pro-Illinois agenda that delivers for our State. Ninian Edwards, James Shields, Stephen Douglas, David Davis, Everett Dirksen, Charles Percy, Alan Dixon, Paul Simon, Carol Moseley Braun, Peter Fitzgerald, Roland Burris, and Barack Obama--I enter this Chamber with all humility, and with the knowledge of those who came before us. They fought for a better future for the next generation, as we shall fight for those who follow. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I was a Member of the House of Representatives at the time the Articles of Impeachment were proffered against Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. On March 11, 2010, I voted in favor of all four Articles of Impeachment in the House, as recorded in rollcall votes 102, 103, 104, and 105. I have given careful consideration to this matter and consulted with other Members of the Senate about the Senate's historical practice. Because I believe the judge is entitled to a full and fair hearing in the Senate and to avoid any possible conflict of interest, I have concluded that under the circumstances, it would be inappropriate for me to participate in the Senate trial and vote again on matters related to the impeachment, having already done so as a Member of the House of Representatives. Therefore, I request that I be recused from sitting as a Member of the Senate while it hears the matter of impeachment proceedings against Judge Porteous.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, I had the great privilege and honor to deliver my first speech as a Representative of the people of the 10th District of Illinois. As I end my time in the House of Representatives and begin with the honor of serving the great State of Illinois, I want to thank those that I have served with and reflect on my time in this great body. Our Jefferson's Manual of House Rules traces its heritage back to the Palace of Westminster, in London, England. Early in the 1980s, I worked under a member of the House of Commons during the time of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and in Parliament, great weight is put on a member's maiden speech. In the speech that I gave in the House of Representatives, a new Member outlines the principles for which he stands, and as I began my service to the people of northern Illinois, I highlighted the political tradition of the men and women who represented us in this House. A look at their accomplishments and service mirrors who we are and the gifts that we can provide to this great Nation. Our community has a 180-year-long tradition of electing leaders who are very independent and ahead of their times. Ours is a rich tradition, and I can only hope that history will find my contributions to be consistent with the predecessors', whose roots trace back to 1818 when a new State of Illinois stood on the frontier of a growing Nation. My predecessors were committed to the people of Illinois and to the good of this Union. At the same time, they understood the important role of the United States and of the world as a beacon of freedom, and while they fought for similarities here at home, they also fought for human rights abroad and condemned those who would spread intolerance and hate wherever it occurred. Within its current boundaries, our congressional district encompasses a diverse community, including northern Cook and eastern Lake Counties, and it stretches from Wilmette, north along Lake Michigan's shore, to Waukegan. To tour our district is to see firsthand both the promise of the American Dream and those who have not yet realized it. Our residents enjoy both great benefits and serious challenges. We are home to some of the wealthiest communities in the Nation, and yet we also have some of the most economically challenged communities in Illinois. We have pristine wetlands and forests, as well as one of the worst polluted harbors in the Great Lakes, and we have more than 1,000 tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel stored just 120 yards from Lake Michigan. We are also home to the only training center for new recruits in the United States Navy. Each day, thousands of my constituents commute to Chicago, fighting some of the worst traffic congestion in the Nation each morning into the city and repeating the process every evening. In serving the people of the 10th District, I have been honored to follow a long list of role models who have represented us in the Congress: Our first Representative, John McLean, was one of the State's pioneer political leaders. He took his seat in the Old House Chamber on December 3, 1818, serving just 1 year. He was later elected to the United States Senate to fill a vacancy caused by the death of Senator Ninian Edwards in 1824 and served through March of the following year. While our pathfinder's service was very brief in both Chambers of this Congress, he was honored by the State, which named McLean County after him. It was about this time that the first European family settled on the North Shore in what is now Evanston, residing in a place that was described as ``a rude habitation of posts, poles and blankets.'' More notable, though, was the construction of the first permanent structure on the North Shore, a roadside grocery, serving cold beer and liquor to travelers. This grocery was described as ``the headquarters of counterfeiters, fugitives from justice and, generally speaking, a vile resort.'' Ironically, 100 years later, Evanston would become the international headquarters of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, and it is from these Spartan but colorful beginnings that we trace our suburban history. Numerous shifts in population have brought many changes to the boundary lines of today's 10th Congressional District, and redistricting has changed its landscape no fewer than 10 times in the last 190 years. We face another change soon as Illinois prepares to lose a congressional seat before the next election. By 1902, Lake and northern Cook Counties were part of the 10th District, and the first outlines of the current district were formed as a new phenomenon in American living emerged, the suburbs. In 1913, the election of a Progressive candidate, Charles M. Thompson, was indicative of the new independent spirit of the 10th District voters and of our willingness to elect whomever will best represent our interests, regardless of incumbency or party affiliation. Independent, thoughtful leadership are common themes among the men and women who represented our 10th District. Our leaders include: John Stuart, a law partner of President Lincoln's; James Woodworth; Isaac Arnold; Charles Farwell; Lorenzo Brentano; George Foss; Abner Mikva; George Adams, a Civil War veteran who fought in the First Regiment of the Illinois Volunteer Artillery; and Robert McClory, who served for nearly 20 years and was a House manager for the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972. Yet there are five men and women who represented the 10th District who stand out among this impressive crowd and deserve star treatment. These five heroes fought against slavery, advocated equal pay for women, civil rights initiatives, and served a number of Presidents as they battled human rights abuses abroad while funding biomedical research here at home. These five exemplify the high standard of leadership demanded by our constituents and expected by our Nation. Elected in the 33rd Congress as a Whig, Representative Elihu B. Washburne served his final seven terms as a Republican. During his tenure in Congress, he served as chairman of the Committee on Commerce and, in the 40th Congress, as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. In 1862, President Lincoln personally lobbied to have him elected Speaker, although he eventually fell short. Representative Washburne's legacy is legendary. He was a strong opponent of slavery and became known as one of the leaders of the Radical Republicans, along with Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner. This group was outspoken in its opposition to slavery that went well beyond calling for simple abolition. They called for complete equality under the law for freed slaves. The Radical Republicans were critical of the reconstruction policies of both President Lincoln and President Andrew Johnson. Representative Washburne argued that Southern plantations should be subdivided and redistributed among former slaves, and when President Johnson attempted to veto the extension of the Freedman's Bureau, the Civil Rights Act, and the Reconstruction Act, Representative Washburne and his colleagues took action and were successful in their efforts to pass the Reconstruction Act. The Radical Republicans and Washburne became leaders in the impeachment of President Johnson, and when his close friend Ulysses S. Grant became President, Representative Washburne was appointed as our country's Secretary of State. He resigned just 11 days later, ending what remains the shortest term for any U.S. Secretary of State. Congressman Washburne left that high office because the President offered him the opportunity to assume the leadership of the American diplomatic mission in Paris. Congressman Washburne served as our ambassador to France through the Franco-Prussian War and there demonstrated true independence and initiative. Ambassador Washburne offered refuge to diplomats from various German States and other foreigners who were abandoned by their diplomatic missions. In grave danger on the street, those diplomats found safety under the American flag with Ambassador Washburne, and when the German Army surrounded Paris in late 1870, Washburne remained at his post and was the only foreign diplomat still in residence in Paris during the days of the Commune. These were tough times for besieged Parisians, who were reduced to eating rats. Washburne honored our Revolutionary War debts to France by continuing his humanitarian service. His international service and his commitment to humanitarian relief presaged our own time when America has become a foundation for freedom and the international system of humanitarian relief missions around the world. Congressman Washburne remained in Paris until 1877, when he returned to Chicago. Sixty years later, we come to the beginning of a career of another star in our story, Congressman Ralph Church, who won election to Congress in the 74th, 75th and 76th Congresses and again in the 78th Congress through his death in the 80th Congress. Many people living in our community still remember Congressman Church and his wife, Marguerite. The second luminary in our story is a Representative far ahead of her time, Representative Church's widow, Marguerite Church. Mrs. Church succeeded her late husband in the Congress, and during her first term, Illinois redistricted its congressional seats for the first time since 1901. It placed northern Cook and Lake Counties in what was then called the 13th District. Mrs. Church brought a commonsense approach to Federal spending. She spoke against what she called extravagant and reckless spending, earning respect from both her colleagues and her constituents. Her seat on the Government Operations Committee gave her an ideal platform to urge restraint in spending, and her assignment on the Committee on Foreign Affairs allowed her to encourage the growth of democracy across the globe. Many of Mrs. Church's policies proposals were forward-thinking. Early in her career, she advocated equal pay for women and civil rights initiatives. The progress of the early 1960s finds its roots 10 years prior, partially in the service of Marguerite Church. She was the only female Member of the Illinois delegation, and her voting record was impeccable, answering more than 11,000 rollcalls during her tenure in the House, missing only four. In 1959 as a ranking member of the Foreign Economic Policy Subcommittee, she traveled more than 40,000 miles and visited 17 countries. In 1960, at the invitation of President Eisenhower, she participated in the White House Conference on Children and Youth and, in 1961, served as a member of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations 15th Assembly. While participating, she jumped far ahead of her time, especially in her outspoken public criticism of South Africa and their policy of apartheid. Mrs. Church then retired in 1962. The 88th Congress saw the beginning of another legendary career. Donald Rumsfeld was elected Representative for this district, having previously served on the staff of Congressman David Dennison and Robert Griffin. While in the House, Rumsfeld sat on the Committee on Science and Astronautics and Government Operations. It was during this heyday of President Kennedy's space program, which heralded Lake Forest's own Jim Lovell, who went on to command Apollo 13. Rumsfeld also had a seat on the Joint Economic Committee in both the 90th and 91st Congresses. His campaigns were indicative of what politics used to be and what they were to become. He accepted only small donations and limited expenditures for his campaign while relying on an army of volunteers to canvass neighborhoods and perform day-to- day tasks which served as the lifeblood, then and today, for any strong congressional campaign. In 1969, he resigned to accept a place in President Nixon's administration as the head of the Office of Economic Opportunity. Not knowing much about the Office's mission at the time, he turned to his chief of staff, Bruce Ladd, who had an intern friend who had written a college paper on the Office of Economic Opportunity. That intern came to brief Congressman Rumsfeld on the Office's opportunities and walked out with a job. The intern's name was Richard Cheney. In 1971, President Nixon appointed Rumsfeld as the director of the Cost of Living Council, a position he held until 1973 when he became the United States ambassador to NATO for 2 years. When President Ford took office in 1974, he recalled Rumsfeld to Washington to coordinate a four-man transition team. His performance earned him appointment as the White House chief of staff, although he personally did not like the title and preferred to be called staff coordinator. He brought Secretary Cheney with him. In 1975, Rumsfeld was appointed our Secretary of Defense, a position which he held through the end of the Ford administration in 1977. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom that same year, and during the Reagan administration, Rumsfeld's expertise led him to accept membership on the President's General Advisory Committee on Arms Control, and he became an adviser on government and national security affairs in 1983 and 1984. He was named Special Presidential Envoy to the Middle East in 1984. Rumsfeld's experience in the private sector as CEO of G.D. Searle & Company and as a senior adviser to William Blair & Company complemented his government service. I'm proud to call him a friend. Building on the records of Washburne, Church, and Rumsfeld, among others, we touch on other stars of our story. Congressman Robert McClory represented Lake County and serves as a true symbol of independence in service to the Nation. Congressman McClory was a conservative and a loyal Republican who was a defender of President Nixon until the evidence convinced him otherwise. It was Congressman McClory's votes for two impeachment articles that set the standard for political independence, judgment, and the rule of law in this House. For us, we now come to the final predecessor of mine in this seat, Congressman John Edward Porter, who won a special election in 1980 to follow Abner Mikva. To briefly touch on Congressman Mikva's service, it was brilliant in many ways and set another standard for independence in this Chamber and on the Federal bench. Following him, Congressman Porter gained a seat on the Committee on Appropriations in 1980 where he served until his retirement after the 106th Congress. Following a trip to the Soviet Union in 1983, Congressman Porter founded the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. He witnessed numerous human rights abuses while in the Soviet Union and decided to enlist the support of his colleagues to bring pressure on nations and groups that mistreat the innocent or prisoners of conscience. In his role as cochairman of the Human Rights Caucus, he helped free refuseniks, fought for the rights of North Korean refugees and religious freedom in China, spoke out against the use of child soldiers in Africa, and condemned the brutal regime of Sani Abacha in Nigeria. The Congressional Human Rights Caucus was the first U.S. Government entity to host the Dalai Lama in Washington. Congressman Porter also sponsored legislation authorizing the creation of Radio Free Asia and then secured appropriations to fund this ground-breaking program, helping move the agenda of freedom in China. Porter's record of accomplishments in foreign policy is impressive, but his record of constituent service was unmatched. He led efforts to improve the safety of Waukegan Regional Airport by updating the radio and control tower. He brought back the Coast Guard rescue unit to help the people of southern Lake Michigan, the same Coast Guard folks that saved my life as a teenager. He worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to control flooding along the north branch of the Chicago River, and his commitment to the environment led him to be a strong supporter of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. He orchestrated the effort to designate 290 acres of land at Fort Sheridan as open space and was one of only six House Members named as taxpayer superhero by the Grace Commission's Citizens Against Government Waste in 1992. He was named to the Concord Coalition's honor role in '97 and '98 for his commitment to eliminating deficits and balancing the budget. John Porter was always willing to take chances when he truly believed in an issue. And 15 years ago, long before it was safe to do so, he proposed reforms to the third rail of American politics, Social Security. His proposal, in fact, can be considered revolutionary because it was one of the first and was remarkably similar to many proposals that followed. What Congressman Porter may be most remembered for was his improvement of the health care for all Americans. In his role as chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education on the Committee on Appropriations, Congressman Porter launched the effort to double funding for the National Institutes of Health within 5 years. This additional funding helped researchers develop better and new treatments and helped fund the cracking of the human genome. He also had a commitment to biomedical research and investment in the future that will undoubtedly result in better health care for all people around the world. John Porter served us all in the highest tradition of public service and commitment to a greater good. Having served as his administrative assistant, I could not have had a stronger role model in public service. I had some very large shoes to fill and can only hope to be remembered by my constituents as someone who fulfilled his tradition. The record clearly demonstrates northeastern Illinois' political character, strongly independent, generally ahead of our time. Ideas like emancipation, equal pay for women, and an end to apartheid were all part of our representatives' leadership in decades ahead of the body politic. Our opinions do not necessarily adhere to strict party lines; and, therefore, anyone who represents our area must demonstrate independence and break from the party on occasion to make sure that they are adhering to our values. My predecessors did this. And while I'm a firm believer in my party's vision, it's that tradition of independence that I sought to serve in the House of Representatives. Elihu Washburne, Marguerite Stitt Church, Don Rumsfeld, Robert McClory, John Porter. They are not household names, but their service helped shape the history of our Nation because of their commitment to do what was right and the decision to take action to protect those most in need. It is an example of what I strove to live up to in the service of this House and the people of the 10th Congressional District. Drawing on this tradition, I focused my service on independence modeled by Congressman McClory, on spending restraint modeled after Mrs. Church, on constituent service and biomedical research in the example of John Porter, on national defense modeled after Don Rumsfeld, and America's role in the world modeled after Elihu B. Washburne. In light of this history, the people of the 10th District demand their Representative in Congress should be a thoughtful, independent leader at all times. And I believe such independence is a way to represent the people of Illinois, and I take that very seriously. Early in my service, I had the opportunity to prove that I would follow that tradition for the 10th District. I cosponsored and voted in favor of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform law, a bill opposed by most Members of my party. Although my support did not make me popular in leadership circles, I made a promise to my constituents, and I was not going to break it. This was not the time to follow party loyalty because I thought the Nation's interests were in supporting that legislation. I have consistently cosponsored and supported bipartisan legislation to end hate crimes and employment discrimination, bolster access to women's health services, and ensure equal rights for all Americans. I've also been a staunch supporter of Federal stem cell research. This cutting-edge research has the potential to eliminate pain and suffering for millions of people who are living with cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and more. Such independence is reflected in Congressional Quarterly's analysis, which identified my record, for example, as ``the center of the House'' in 2009. My predecessor, John Porter, set our country on a course to double funding for the National Institutes of Health over his first 5 years; and I maintained that commitment to his legacy through 10 years in this House. On my view, it is essential that we continue this promise and ensure that we remain committed to the future advancement of medical technology and research. I'm also very proud to be one of the only few Republicans who worked actively to craft stem cell legislation and was an original sponsor of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which the House passed but unfortunately was vetoed by the President. The future of stem cell research is unknown, but I'm hopeful that we will continue to lead on this issue and ensure that we find a permanent solution and set funding from the Federal Government. Following the inauguration of President Obama, I worked with my fellow moderates in the Tuesday Group, the House Centrist Caucus, to create a health care reform agenda. As a result of hundreds of meetings and roundtable discussions with providers and doctors and patient groups, we authored the Medical Rights and Reform Act, which guarantees the doctor-patient relationship, allows individuals to buy insurance across State lines, and would end frivolous lawsuits. Following Congresswoman Church's footsteps, I also took measures to reduce wasteful Federal spending. I bucked my party in leading the charge to deny hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal funding for the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska. I was also the first member of the Appropriations Committee to swear off pork-barrel spending in our broken earmark system. I consistently voted to support the taxpayer and ease the burden of Federal taxes on American families. I voted in a way that reflects a pragmatic problem-solving nature for the people of northeastern Illinois. I tried to make sure that the Federal Government was making daily life easier for suburban families. The most common complaint among families in Chicago suburbs is traffic congestion. Our highway system is outdated and in need of repair, and mass transit can be more readily available if we work policy correctly. To address this, I joined with my colleague to the west, Congresswoman Melissa Bean, to create the Suburban Transportation Commission. Our goal was to bring together local leaders with their State and Federal representatives to find solutions to local and regional transportation problems. I have been a staunch supporter of commuter rail; and I am pleased to say that since we've been in office, Metra has expanded service on its North Central line and is working now to build the Star line, which I hope will provide a commuter rail link between western suburbs. I also introduced the COMMUTER Act to incentivize the use of public transportation among suburbanites who would otherwise be stuck in traffic. Recognizing the growth of suburban communities, I joined with dozens of my colleagues to devise the Suburban Agenda, a package of legislation designed to address the needs and concerns of suburban families. We focused on keeping kids safe in school, making college more affordable, preserving open space, and improving our health care delivery system. And to keep employment up in the suburbs in the teeth of the Great Recession, I introduced the Small Business Bill of Rights, a bill to protect the number one engine of our economy, small businesses. From preserving the right to a secret ballot in a union election to eliminating unnecessary paperwork, the Small Business Bill of Rights is a prime example of suburban pragmatism at work. Suburban families also expect world-class schools, and in the 10th District we are privileged to have some of the best public schools in the country. I think it is fitting that the first bill I introduced in the House was the GRADE-A Act to ensure full funding for Federal impact aid schools. I established an education advisory board to help guide me in formulating education policy, and this board helped draft legislation making technical corrections to the No Child Left Behind Act that I believed would enhance local control of schools and empower teachers. I worked on many facets of improving our education system, including creating healthier learning environments. I introduced the Green Schools Act to provide matching grants for green school construction projects in our classrooms and the School Conservation Corps Act to support conservation clubs and teach kids about the importance of environmental protection. As a staunch supporter of alternative energy and transportation, we supported and authored many other bills to provide permanent tax incentives for renewable energy and clean transportation. I also joined with Congressmen Boehlert and Platts to help lead the Republican effort to raise the Nation's fuel economy standards. Following in the tradition of Congressmen Washburne and Porter, we promoted human rights in remote corners of the world through my tenure of this House. I took up the case of a journalist imprisoned in Bangladesh simply on the, quote, crime of promoting interfaith dialogue between Bangladesh and Israel. Shoaib Choudhury was charged with sedition, a crime punishable by death under Bangladeshi law, and spent 18 months in prison before congressional attention convinced authorities to release him. In 2007, the House passed a resolution I authored calling on the Government of Bangladesh to immediately drop all charges against Shoaib. It carried by a vote of 409-1. Some of our work also helped secure the release of Dr. Taye Wolde- Semayat, a political prisoner in Ethiopia. We condemned the persecution of Baha'is in Iran and sought to bring peace to Darfur, worked to secure the release of the first Egyptian blogger to be jailed for his online writings, and established the Congressional Commission on Divided Families to reunite Korean Americans with their North Korean relatives. We fought to protect Iraq's Christian community from increasing violence and led efforts to combat the rise of global anti-Semitism. We fought for women's rights around the world, basic education, health services, and access to family planning. We stood up for our allies--Poland, Armenia, Greece, Ukraine, and Georgia--and increased oversight of the United Nation's Relief and Works Agency, and demanded accountability in U.S. assistance to the West Bank and Gaza. We successfully changed policy on proposed arms sales to Saudi Arabia, protecting U.S. forces in the region, and preserving Israel's qualitative military advantage. We delivered Eyes in the Sky, and the X-Band radar system to defend the State of Israel, and our bipartisan legislation moved forward to prohibit gasoline sales to Iran which is now the law of the land. In my time representing the people of the 10th District, there is one defining moment that shaped my work in the Congress and forever changed our country. I started the day on September 11, 2001, in the Pentagon having breakfast with Secretary Rumsfeld. The meeting broke up early when the Secretary was notified that a second plane hit the World Trade Center. Shortly thereafter, we were evacuated from the Capitol complex after the Pentagon was hit. Being forced from our offices that day was a profoundly sad moment. As a veteran and a Naval Reserve intelligence officer, I knew we were at war and there was much work to be done in the Congress to protect the American people and provide our military with the resources they needed to fight terrorism. The House began debating legislation to establish a Department of Homeland Security while most congressional offices were closed as a result of an anthrax attack. Working out of temporary space at the General Accounting Office, I authored language providing for effective 911 emergency call capabilities from telephones on passenger aircraft and trains. At the same time, I also began working on improving the effectiveness of the State Department's Rewards for Justice program to help provide investigators with more information that could lead to the capture of wanted terrorists. Remembering how a tip from this program led to the capture of Mir Aimal Kasi, the terrorist who murdered CIA employees outside headquarters on January 25, 1993, I wanted to increase the maximum reward for information that would lead us to terrorists responsible for 9/11. In the years that followed, we continued to work to make this program more effective, authorizing special payments, expanding the number of informants eligible for rewards, and allowing payments other than cash to be made in certain circumstances. The war in Afghanistan requires contributions from all elements of the U.S. Government, and sometimes the best support comes from unexpected places. On one trip to Afghanistan, I was pleasantly surprised to find that some of the best intelligence against al Qaeda and the Taliban were coming from agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration. I was also surprised to learn that the DEA was not officially part of the U.S. intelligence community. I returned to Washington and worked with Congressman Frank Wolf to make sure that the DEA became an official member of the intelligence community again. I also worked to provide DEA with specialized intelligence aircraft to use in Afghanistan. The intelligence collected from this plane not only helps warfighters on the ground, but the information is also admissible in court, meaning narcoterrorists in Afghanistan could more likely face criminal charges in the United States. I am very proud of my work in Congress to help our men and women in uniform fight overseas, and more proud to have served alongside them. In December 2008, I became the first Member of the House to serve in an imminent danger area when I deployed to Kandahar, Afghanistan to serve as a special adviser to General Nicholson for Regional Command South focused on counternarcotics. A year later, I returned to Afghanistan to serve again. Each time, I have become more committed to the men and women serving over there and their mission. Today, 9 years after the first American boots hit the ground in Afghanistan, the mission remains vital to our security. We must leave Afghanistan only after victory is secured and terrorists no longer find sanctuary in its rugged mountains capable of hurting Americans and the United States. As a veteran, one of my highest priorities in the Congress is to take care of our men and women in uniform, consistently work to improve the quality of life for active duty servicemen and -women, their families, and retirees. I am proud to have joined with Congressman Dennis Moore to pass the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial Coin Act. This memorial will honor the sacrifices made by America's more than 3 million disabled veterans by building a memorial for them here in Washington, D.C., within eyesight of the Capitol. I was also inspired to see this bill passed by an extraordinary young man, Sergeant Bryan Anderson of Rolling Meadows, Illinois. Bryan lost both legs and an arm due to a roadside bomb in Iraq. Washington has legions of professional advocates who make a living out of convincing people to see issues from their point of view, but none can compare to Bryan. With Bryan, what you see is what you get--a veteran with an inspirational story who wants to see the memorial built, not for himself, not just for disabled veterans, but so that everyone will remember the sacrifice of all of our veterans. One project in particular follows the arc of my career in this House. In 1999, a Washington-based consultant wrote a study recommending the closure of the North Chicago VA Hospital. The study said that Lake County veterans could get help downtown in Chicago or Maywood, or even the Milwaukee area, with only a 30-minute drive. The study overlooked the fact that North Chicago VA was recently renovated and housed modern in-patient wards with the latest equipment still in bubble wrap. It also overlooked the fact that the Navy was operating an outdated, oversized hospital no more than a mile away and had plans to invest more than $100 million to replace it. I thought it made more sense to combine these two institutions, rather than close one and rebuild the other. Over the last 10 years, we battled the bureaucracy and gradually integrated the services of the Navy and VA. We started by combining in- patient mental health, leading to a jointly operated operations suite and emergency room, and on October 1st of this year, we officially opened the first truly joint Navy-VA hospital in the country. This new facility will care for more than 100,000 veterans, retirees, sailors, and their families. It is my hope that this model will improve veterans' health care throughout our Nation. What better way to honor our veterans than by naming the facility after one of our Nation's heroes, 10th District resident and Apollo XIII Commander Captain James A. Lovell, Jr. In 2007, I wrote to Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England and requested that the new facility have the name that reflected the mission of this pioneering hero. In response, the Deputy Secretary wrote, ``It is fitting to name the facility after Captain Lovell, not only for the reasons cited in your letter, but also for his role in the history-making Gemini 7 mission, which included the first rendezvous of two manned maneuverable spacecraft. The joint DoD-VA health care facility in North Chicago can be described as the first rendezvous of two separate medical treatment facilities, joining them into one cohesive, comprehensive federal facility. It, too, is a history-making event.'' As I leave this House, we face key challenges; challenges of solving increasing gridlock in our communities; challenges on the environmental front of cleaning up nuclear waste and PCBs; challenges of maintaining the tradition of the 10th District in education excellence; challenges like keeping the U.S. health care system on the cutting edge so that each American lives a full and healthy life; and providing tax fairness for married people, ending the death tax, and stopping government waste. I look forward to continuing our work and confronting these challenges head-on in the Senate. In the meantime, I want to extend my best wishes and heartfelt congratulations to our congressman-elect, Robert Dold, who I know will continue our tradition of thoughtful, independent leadership. Congressman-elect Dold shares my passion for our district, our State, our country, and our democratic allies. I am confident that the 10th District is now in good hands and look forward to working with him to advancing these goals. Mr. Speaker, I first arrived in this House as a staff member in 1984, 26 years ago. On and off, I served during the speakerships of Tip O'Neill, Jim Wright, Tom Foley, Newt Gingrich, Dennis Hastert, and Nancy Pelosi. This institution is the real arena of American politics. It is here that the raw emotions of the American people are translated nearly instantaneously into draft policies to address our Nation's needs. It is here where democracy is strongest, youngest, and most vibrant. As an intern, staffer, and Member I have had the honor to serve in the House of Commons in London, in the House of Representatives here in Washington, and soon in the Senate. But most of my professional life, in one form or another, has been here in the People's House. I have loved every minute of it, and would say to young Americans that one of the best ways to make a real difference in life is to join the roughly 12,000 Americans who have had the unique privilege of serving their district here in the center of the democratic world. I want to especially thank my district chiefs of staff, Dodie McCracken, Lenore Macdonald, and Eric Elk; my Washington chiefs of staff, Doug O'Brien, Liesl Hickey, and Les Munson; and the man who drafted my first speech in the House, Patrick Magnuson, and the man who drafted my last speech in the House, Patrick Magnuson. I move on now to the Senate to serve the people of Illinois. I am honored to have the privilege to work for everyone from Rockford to Cairo. But part of my heart will always remain here in the House with the spirits of Washburne, Church, Rumsfeld, Mikva, and Porter, the men and women who represented the northern suburbs here in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I yield the floor for the last time, and thank you.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, today I introduce a bill to help our commercial neighborhoods to recover the economic activity they have lost during the Great Recession. When the economy tumbled and unemployment rose to the highest level seen in a generation, businesses were forced to close their doors, transforming once-thriving commercial streets into quiet avenues with ``For Rent'' signs. My bill encourages private investors to develop land and vacant properties that have had no substantial economic activity for at least two years by exempting them from taxes for up to ten years. Proper tax incentives can ignite an economic renaissance in our cities and towns by nurturing private investment and enterprise. This is the best government stimulus I know.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, during the vote on H.R. 5618, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010, I was unavoidably detained--had I been present I would have voted against this legislation. Americans are struggling to make ends meet in this economy and while I support giving unemployment benefits to people who lost their jobs, it is irresponsible for this Congress to add $34 billion to the national debt to do so. This legislation should have been paid for with cuts to other programs. Last week the Treasury Department quietly announced that the estimated total debt for fiscal year 2010 will reach $13.6 trillion, equal to 93.1 percent of our Gross Domestic Product. With the European Union in the midst of a sovereign debt crisis, this is the wrong time to add to our already staggering national debt. Had I been present for the vote on H.R. 5623, the Homebuyers Assistance and Improvement Act of 2010, I would have voted in favor of this legislation. Unlike H.R. 5618, the cost of this legislation is fully offset. The homebuyer tax credit has been very successful, and after its expiration on April 30th, home sales dropped by more than 30 percent. Extending this credit by 90 days and fully offsetting its cost is a responsible course of action I fully support.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. I thank the ranking member for yielding. I also want to thank my colleague, Rob Andrews, because we wrote the first version of this legislation in 2005. It has been 5 years of work. I want to commend the chairman for bringing it to the floor. I have a prepared statement I will insert in the Record with one simple statement: Mr. President, sign this bill and then seal off Iran's gas. That is the best way to empower diplomacy. The gasoline sanction is the only sanction which has a chance of working. This legislation has overwhelming bipartisan consensus, already supported by 512 Members of Congress to back this. And I want to really thank my original partner on this, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). Mr. Speaker, as the Iranians accelerate their nuclear program, what are our options? We know Iran's greatest weakness: its dependence on foreign gasoline. Despite being a leading OPEC oil exporter, Iran has grossly mishandled its economy since 1979 and is now forced to import the bulk of its domestic supply. Realizing this crucial vulnerability, I wrote the first gasoline sanctions resolution with my colleague Congressman Rob Andrews in 2005. Over time, my colleagues and I built a bipartisan, bicameral congressional coalition with Congressman Sherman, Senator Kyl and Senator Lieberman behind a policy of ending Iranian gasoline sales. After 5 years, Congress finally considers our gasoline restriction legislation today. It comes not a moment too soon. According to experts, Iran has managed to reduce its dependence on foreign gasoline over the last 4 years. As the Washington Post reports today, Iran spent more than $10 billion since 2008 to boost its strategic reserves. In going down the failed path of diplomacy without crippling sanction, we are losing critical leverage to halt Iranian progress toward a nuclear bomb. For the bill before us to be effective, it must be vigorously enforced. No administration has ever enforced the Iran Sanctions Act, passed more than a decade ago. According to the Congressional Research Service, at least 20 companies are currently violating the 1996 law. I thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their leadership on this issue. Now it's time for all of us to join together in a clear bipartisan call: Mr. President, sign it and seal it. Sign this bill and seal off Iran's gasoline.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, June 12th will mark the one-year anniversary of the fraudulent presidential elections in Iran. In the wake of street protests that followed, human rights in Iran have gravely deteriorated. On this day, we must remember the dozens of courageous individuals murdered by this brutal regime and the hundreds of others detained without legal recourse. We must remember Neda Agha Soltan, the innocent young woman slain by the Basij militia. The post-election crackdown fully exposed the Iranian regime's continuing oppression of political dissidents as well as religious and ethnic minorities. In the spring of 2008, seven leaders of the Baha'i community were arrested and detained in Tehran's notorious Evin prison on charges of ``spreading corruption on earth,'' among other outrageous falsehoods. They have been incarcerated for 20 months before a show trial can even commence. Moreover, according to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, as many as 45 members of the Baha'i community are currently imprisoned in Iran solely on the basis of their religious identity. The fourth court appearance of the Baha'i leaders is scheduled for June 12 to coincide with the one-year anniversary of the stolen election. The cynicism of the Iranian regime knows no bounds. It is time that the United States and the international community hold Iran accountable for denying the fundamental freedoms to its people. Yesterday, in commenting on the passed UN Security Council resolution on the Iranian nuclear program, the President stated that ``whether it is threatening the nuclear non-proliferation regime, or the human rights of its own citizens, or the stability of its own neighbors by supporting terrorism, the Iranian government continues to demonstrate that its own unjust actions are a threat to justice everywhere.'' I agree with the President. His words should now be followed with action. We must raise the stakes for the Iranian leadership to cease its human rights abuses and abide by the rules of the international community. This Administration needs to prioritize human rights as a focal point of its Iran policy. American diplomats should continually raise the issue of human rights in Iran. We must urge our international allies to use their bilateral relationships and diplomatic missions in Tehran to call for the release of Iranian dissidents, religious minorities, and other prisoners of conscience. Most importantly, the President should speak publicly and directly to the Iranian people that the United States will never abandon them in their struggle for freedom and fundamental human rights.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce a bipartisan resolution calling on the Government of Malawi to immediately release two prisoners of conscience--Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza--and to address the pervasive violation of human rights in the country and the criminalization of consensual sexual conduct by adults. Messrs. Chimbalanga and Monjeza were arrested at their home on December 27, 2009, after holding a traditional engagement ceremony. These two men now stand accused of ``committing acts of gross indecency,'' punishable by up to 14 years in prison under Malawi's law. They have been repeatedly denied bail and subjected to psychiatric evaluation without their consent. While in prison, Mr. Monjeza's health has gravely deteriorated. In prosecuting two innocent individuals solely on the basis of consensual sexual conduct, the Malawian authorities have severely violated the fundamental human rights of Mr. Chimbalanga and Mr. Monjeza under international law. Amnesty International has declared these men ``prisoners of conscience'', and Human Rights Watch and other organizations have called for their immediate release. The final ruling that will decide the fate of these men is expected on May 18, 2010. Today, with my colleague from Wisconsin, Representative Tammy Baldwin, I call on the Government of Malawi to immediately release these two individuals and for Secretary Clinton to closely monitor human rights abuses in Malawi.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, today's volatility in the stock market teaches us two lessons: first, the United States, our Treasury Secretary, and our President must advance a new International Economic Stabilization plan based on tremendous cuts in European government spending. Over 60 percent of Greece's GDP is in the public sector. With debts rising to 100 percent of national income, their ability to repay their debts was inevitably going to collapse. Spain, Portugal, and Italy may be next. Their debts total trillions, not hundreds of millions. Our U.S. financial system and our stock market depends on what I would call a new international fiscal conservatism that cuts government spending and deficit financing. Today also teaches us another lesson. The very debts that crippled Europe and shook our stock market are coming to America, fueled by the irresponsible spending of this Congress. We need to cut Federal spending now to reassure markets and assure that America's children will never have to ask this question: ``Who will bail out America?''

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize a pioneer and American hero--Mr. David James, a constituent of mine from Winnetka. Born in the 1920s, Mr. James' family moved from St. Louis to Chicago's South Side. Soon after the start of World War II, Mr. James enlisted in the Army Air Corps in October 1942 and joined the ``Tuskegee Airmen,'' our nation's first African-American military aircrews. He joined nearly 1,000 other airmen who broke barriers and fought for their nation. Mr. James served his country with distinction as a pilot. After his military discharge, Mr. James graduated from law school and became the first African-American attorney to work for the American Bar Association. He moved to Winnetka in part because of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech at the Winnetka Village Green in 1965, and lived there for nearly 40 years. His service, both in the military and his efforts to promote civil rights, serves as an inspiration to future generations. I am honored to represent him in the Congress and I wish him and his family all the best.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor a 10th District resident who has experienced what only a handful of Americans have gone through. Mr. Gregory J. Harbaugh of Wilmette logged over 800 hours in space as an astronaut for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. A graduate of Purdue University, Mr. Harbaugh began his career supporting flight operations from Mission Control at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. In August 1988, Mr. Harbaugh became an astronaut and went on to participate in four space flights. During those flights, he spent more than 18 hours in extravehicular activity outside of the spaceship. For his service, Mr. Harbaugh received the NASA Distinguished Service Medal, four NASA Space Flight Medals, the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, and the NASA Exceptional Achievement Medal. Mr. Harbaugh's explorations are invaluable to the advancement of science. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Too often, the Congress focuses on problems of the past, not dangers to come. Last month, the Greek Government lost its AAA credit rating. On May 19, Greece will have to pay $10 billion in loans that it does not have the money to cover. The market will only lend now at a 24 percent interest rate. Estimates are that an IMF Greek bailout will cost $100 billion. On Monday, Portugal lost its AAA rating, and this news triggered a sudden loss in our own stock market. Yesterday, Spain lost its credit rating, and the Spanish problem is five times the size of the Greek problem. Italy and Ireland may be next. We may soon face a sovereign debt crisis. CRS reports that the IMF has $268 billion to lend, an amount that could quickly be exceeded by a European debt crisis. The IMF may not have the resources to handle this crisis, and the Fed and the U.S. taxpayer may be called on to bail out these irresponsible governments. Few in Congress even know of this danger to our economy and to our family incomes.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, as the Iranians accelerate their nuclear program, indications are that America may be losing its nerve. In its latest report to Congress, the CIA said that Iran has continued to expand its nuclear weapon infrastructure and that it has continued uranium enrichment. This follows reports by the U.N.'s IAEA that Iran has mastered the art of making low-enriched uranium and that it is halfway to its goal of making bomb-grade fissile material. So what are our options? We know that Iran's greatest weakness is its dependence on foreign gasoline. The mullahs have so mishandled Iran's economy since 1979 that this leading OPEC, oil-producing nation is dependent on gasoline for 40 percent of its needs. I wrote the first gasoline sanctions resolution with my colleague Rob Andrews in 2005. Over time, my colleagues and I have built a bipartisan coalition with Congressman Sherman behind a policy of ending Iran's gasoline sales. I want to thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their success in bringing this bill to the floor. In these partisan times now, when have 514 Senators and Congressmen agreed on anything? But they agree on cutting off Iran's gasoline. Now, without decisive bipartisan action soon, the security of our children and of our allies may depend on the good behavior of a terrorist nation now armed with the most dangerous weapon. So, as Congress has been sleeping, I think we should wake up. We should finally sign this bipartisan bill. To Congress: Pass this legislation. To the President: Sign it and then seal off Iran's gasoline. Without unilateral action to cut off Iran's gasoline, no other sanctions policy is serious. With it, we have a chance to remove a great danger to the security of American and Israeli children.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Bill of Rights. For the last three years, Congress has hurt small businesses with legislation to increase taxes and government regulation. It is time to show small businesses that we support them by backing one bill that has it all, the Small Business Bill of Rights. Endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), this legislation would: Protect secret ballots in union elections Lower health costs with lawsuit reforms and interstate competition Lower energy costs with credits for efficient equipment and hybrids Permit children to continue business with low/no death tax Exempt small businesses from capital gains tax for 10 years Make immigration laws easy to comply with Create a Patent Office fast lane for small business innovation Limit federal paperwork through the SBA for small businesses to 200 hours annually Prevent AMT from taxing the middle class Reduce deficit to encourage jobs and improve credit Small businesses cannot afford lobbyists or lawyers to grease the wheels to get government assistance. With more than 1.1 million small businesses in Illinois accounting for 98.4 percent of all employers, now is the time to act. In the teeth of the Great Recession, Congress must work to protect the heart and soul of our economy by lowering taxes and decreasing the regulatory burden so that small business employers will begin hiring, putting Americans back to work. Small businesses are disproportionately suffering, accounting for nearly 80 percent of job losses and I urge my colleagues to become a cosponsor of this commonsense legislation. Let us grow this economy and put people back to work.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, two Middle Eastern newspapers reported today that Syria has transferred scud missiles to a terrorist group in Lebanon. This repeats actions by Iran and Syria in 2006 when they gave cruise missiles to Hezbollah. It shows that the Syrians and Iranians have no wish to control their arsenals. They will transfer any weapon they own to terrorist groups. These reports tell us two things: First, the U.N. army that we sent to Lebanon in 2006 is an utter failure that makes no effort to stop the largest missiles from deploying next to their very own U.N. camps. Second, it shows that, once Iran makes nuclear weapons, it will transfer them to terrorists like Hezbollah and who knows who else.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3590, the Senate Health Care bill. I strongly support reforms to lower the cost of health insurance and cover Americans with pre-existing conditions. That is why I authored the Medical Rights and Reform Act, H.R. 3790. Under our centrist Reform Act, we cover Americans with pre-existing conditions and advance three major reforms: (1) The Medical Rights Act: Under our bill, Congress shall make no law interfering with the personal decisions that you make with your doctor, (2) Lawsuit Reform: By applying the lawsuit reforms (recently eliminated in Illinois) similar to successful California reforms, we could reduce defensive medicine, saving over $200 billion annually, and (3) Granting Americans Interstate Rights: Our bill grants the right to all Americans to buy health coverage from any state in the union, especially if you find a plan that is less expensive or more flexible for your family or small business. This improves choice and competition for each American. Unfortunately, the Congressional leadership will not permit a debate on our bill. Instead, the House will only allow one vote on the health care bill adopted by the Senate. Under the Senate bill, the Congress will increase spending by $1.2 trillion, including $940 billion for new subsidies, $144 billion for new mandates, $70 billion to administer the bill and $41 billion in unrelated spending. To attempt to pay for the bill, Congress will raise taxes, cut Medicare and borrow a historic amount of money. To pass the Senate, the bill also included the ``Louisiana Purchase'', ``Cornhusker Kickback'' and ``Gatoraide'' that advantaged Louisiana, Nebraska and Florida over the people of Illinois. The bill imposes 12 new federal taxes, imposing over $500 billion in new payments to the government, including over $23 billion in taxes on the people of Illinois. Among the new taxes is a new ``Individual Mandate Tax'' (IMT) of $2,250 per household or 2 percent of household income. The bill increases the Medicare payroll tax and does not adjust this for inflation. Therefore, like the infamous Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), the new Medicare tax will soon reach most middle class families as inflation pushes more Americans into its bracket. The bill also increases the capital gains tax. Most economists worry that too many businesses plan for the short-term, hurting long-term economic growth. That is why investments which are held for longer periods of time pay a lower capital gains tax. The Senate bill reverses this wise policy by imposing a new 3.8 percent tax on capital gains, raising the rate from 15 percent to 23.8 percent by 2013. Both Americans for Tax Reform and the Heritage Foundation estimated that the new taxes and Medicare cuts in the bill would cost over 600,000 job opportunities per year or an estimated 26,042 fewer Illinois jobs. The bill also has a number of budget gimmicks to hide spending. Once the Social Security Trust Fund, long-term health care and student loan gimmicks are removed, the bill adds $755 billion to the federal deficit or $2,460 in new debt for each man, woman, and child. Here is a look at the estimated national job losses under the bill: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sector Jobs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting.................. -5,441 Mining...................................................... -5,478 Construction................................................ -43,316 Manufacturing............................................... -105,229 Wholesale trade............................................. -47,663 Retail trade................................................ -84,339 Transportation and warehousing.............................. -36,806 Utilities................................................... -5,271 Information................................................. -26,342 Financial Activities........................................ -77,269 Professional and business services.......................... -132,596 Educational services........................................ -32,102 Leisure and hospitality..................................... -49,682 Other services.............................................. -46,564 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total................................................... -698,098 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Half of all people employed in Illinois work in a small business and over 80 percent of job losses during this Great Recession have been from small business employers. Nevertheless, this legislation requires the federal government to levy a new $52 billion tax on small businesses, even though unemployment now tops 12 percent in Illinois. The bill begins a new $2,000 tax on small business with over 50 employees. Over 21,600 small businesses in Illinois could be subject to this new tax. This tax applies to part-time as well as full-time workers. The follow-up Reconciliation Bill also includes an unprecedented extension of the Medicare tax to all non-wage income. The legislation stands for the principle that we should cut senior health care under Medicare to fund a new entitlement spending program. Over 40 million seniors depend on Medicare for their health care. Under the Senate bill, the federal government would cut over $500 billion from Medicare. This includes cutting over $200 billion from Medicare Advantage, cancelling the Medicare choice of over 120,000 Illinois seniors. Here is a summary of the Medicare cuts: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Medicare Advantage........................ $202 billion. Home Health............................... 39 billion. Medicare Part B........................... 25 billion. Hospital DSH Payments..................... 25 billion. Medicare Part D........................... 10 billion. Medical Imaging........................... 1 billion. Preventative Services..................... 700 million. Durable Medical Equipment................. 1 billion. Power-Driven Wheelchairs.................. 800 million. Hospice................................... 100 million. Medicare Improvement Fund................. 20 billion. Medigap................................... 100 million. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total................................. $523 billion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ While the American people overwhelmingly want to lower health insurance costs, the bill increases costs because it requires Americans to buy health insurance that include new mandates for coverage. According to the Administration, individual insurance premiums will increase by 10 percent for over 600,000 people in Illinois. On average, Illinois individuals currently pay $2,499 annually for insurance. Under the bill, costs will go up at least $150 a month to a level of $4,299 annually. On March 4, the Chicago Tribune reported that for ``more than half- million consumers in individual health plans, base rates will go up from 8.5 percent to more than 60 percent.'' The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the bill's provisions that double the tax on health insurers, drug makers and medical devices will all be passed on to patients in the form of higher health costs and rising insurance premiums. Under the federal Medicaid program for the poor, states must pay half of all costs. As you know, the State of Illinois has one of the highest deficits of any state, totaling over $12 billion. Spending on the Illinois Medicaid program rose 65 percent from $8 billion in 2001 to $13 billion in 2008 to now cover 2.4 million people. Under the Senate Health Care bill, Illinois would have to cover an additional 400,000 people, adding an additional $1 billion to the state's deficit over five years. Health care under Medicaid is already deteriorating. Over 9,000 doctors in Illinois refuse to accept Medicaid patients (28 percent nationwide), in part because it takes Illinois over 100 days to pay for services. About the only jobs created by the legislation would be at the IRS. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the IRS would need to hire over 16,000 people--over 700 just in Illinois--to audit the American people and impose the new taxes and mandates of the bill. New IRS agents would verify if you have acceptable authority, fine you up to 2 percent of your income for failure to prove that you have purchased ``minimum essential coverage,'' confiscate your tax refund and conduct audits. Under the bill, nearly half of the new individual mandate taxes will be paid by Americans earning less than $66,150 for a family of four. I will vote against this legislation because it costs Illinois jobs, raises taxes and deepens the debt our children must one day pay. I wish that we could adopt a more modest set of reforms that do not have such harsh consequences for our economy. In the coming days, I will outline policies and legislation that will reduce spending, lower the debt and prevent new taxes on the American people. While we did not prevail in this contest, I will continue to work and ensure a strong economy and bright future for every Illinois citizen.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act, a bipartisan measure to enforce U.S. law regarding Iran. As the New York Times reported last Sunday, for far too long, international businesses have ignored the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996. The Iranian regime continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons and remains the world's leading sponsor of terrorist organizations, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. While the original ISA was intended to deter investment in Iran's energy sector that serves as the main source of financial support for the regime, no entity has ever been held accountable under the Act. The executive branch has disregarded the enforcement of existing U.S. sanctions on Iran for far too long--and this Administration has been no exception to the rule. In October of last year, fifty members of Congress wrote to the Administration, requesting an investigation of potential ISA violators identified by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS). Despite a pledge by the Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman to conduct such an investigation within 45 days, the Administration still has not provided Congress with the full results of its investigation. Therefore, this bill would require the President to investigate and determine ISA violators within 45 days and to notify Congress. To aid the Administration's efforts, this bill mandates the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to publish monthly a list of those entities suspected of violating the ISA. The time to act is now. To stop Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and curb its sponsorship of global terrorism, I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I feel compelled to rise today as the only Member of this body who has deployed twice to Afghanistan, both times as a Navy Reserve intelligence officer in Kandahar in 2008 and 2009. I'm not worried about the outcome of this debate. My colleague from Ohio will be defeated today more decisively than during his Presidential campaign. I am worried about why the Speaker scheduled this debate. In the face of record job losses, a trillion-dollar health care takeover bill, and serious corruption charges leveled by the bipartisan Ethics Committee on some of the most powerful Members of this House, the Speaker has thrown an irresponsible bone to the far fringe of her party by scheduling this debate on the only unqualified success of the Obama administration, his surge to Afghanistan. By setting up this pointless debate, she risks undermining the Obama administration's admirable combat record in Afghanistan. Parts of this debate will now be replayed and misquoted by the Taliban and Iranian radios in ways that will hurt the elected government of Afghanistan, our NATO allies and Americans who wear the uniform now in the field. I can speak from personal experience. There are no Republicans or Democrats in Afghanistan. There are American troops, our troops, who delivered a stunning set of military successes just in the last 3 months. General Nicholson and his marines took the narco-Taliban stronghold of Marjah in a single week, sending the Taliban fleeing. This is the heroin heartland that has funded the rerise of the Taliban. In a quiet shadow war, our allies then captured the Taliban's top military commander, the equivalent of our Secretary of Defense. And when he was interrogated, we then followed up by capturing the Taliban governors of several provinces and key military leaders. If the Taliban military was a company, it has lost its CEO, its vice president, and its best salesman. At this rate, the guy who is running the mail room will now be attempting to run the Taliban soon. We all witnessed 9/11. Especially for those of us representing large cities, the lessons that we learned on that day have now come to the core of our public service. It's obvious to say that President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and Secretary of Defense Gates fiercely oppose this resolution. Given our overwhelming bipartisan opposition to the resolution, many of our troops would ask, Don't they know that we're winning? What are they doing in Congress? And I would ask, given the growing ethical cloud over this House, given record unemployment in the United States, given a trillion-dollar flawed health care bill, why would the Speaker choose to schedule a forum to question of one of the biggest successes of our President?

Mr. KIRK. I will just say that we know the resolution will be defeated. But given the opportunities that it gives Taliban propagandists on the radio, we should ask, Why did the Speaker even schedule such a lopsided debate on this floor?

Mr. KIRK. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. KIRK. I would just say that we probably spend enough time naming post offices in the House of Representatives during the worst economy in our country----