Mike Quigley

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Cliff Koroll, a Chicago Blackhawks legend. After signing with the Blackhawks in 1969, Cliff enjoyed 11 seasons as their right winger, where he reached the 50-point mark during four different seasons. He also helped lead the Blackhawks to the Stanley Cup finals twice and later served six seasons as their assistant coach. His talent led him to be inducted into multiple sports halls of fame, but his greatest accomplishment is leading the Chicago Blackhawks Alumni Association. This group of retired players continually gives back to the Chicago community and has given over $1 million in scholarships to the most deserving high school players in Illinois. Cliff is also a supporter of the Chicago Legal Clinic, which provides legal services for immigrants, the disabled, victims of domestic violence, consumers with serious debt issues, and more. Today I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring and celebrating Cliff's work and accomplishments.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Cliff Koroll, a Chicago Blackhawks legend. Cliff Koroll is a Canadian Ukrainian born in Canora, Saskatchewan, Canada. He played his youth hockey for the Saskatoon Wesleys and helped them win a Provincial Championship. Cliff continued his education with his childhood friend Keith Magnuson at the University of Denver. Both players were standouts and were key factors in winning the NCAA Championship for Denver University. Both Cliff Koroll and Keith Magnuson signed with the Blackhawks in 1969. Cliff played 11 seasons in the NHL, all with the Chicago Blackhawks and became their Assistant Coach for six seasons. I believe Cliff to be one of the proudest players to wear the Blackhawks sweater. Cliff is the current President of the Chicago Blackhawks Alumni Association, a group of retired Blackhawks players that give back to the Chicago community. Throughout the hard work and dedication of the late President, Keith Magnuson, and other key individuals, the Chicago Blackhawks Alumni Association has become a huge success, giving over one million dollars in college scholarships to the most deserving high school hockey players in Illinois. The group is also very supportive of the Ronald McDonald House. Cliff has also been supportive to the Chicago Legal Clinic, which has a thirty-four year history of providing legal services to the poor and elderly in the Chicago area. While serving a host of legal needs, the Clinic focuses on vulnerable populations, such as immigrants, the disabled, victims of domestic violence, those facing foreclosure, children in the midst of divorce, consumers with serious debt issues, and those confronting urban environmental problems. Cliff has been inducted into the Saskatchewan Sports Hall of Fame, Saskatoon Sports Hall of Fame, The Chicago Sports Hall of Fame, Illinois Amateur Hockey Hall of Fame, the University of Denver Hall of Fame, and the Ukrainian National Museum in Chicago. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring and celebrating his work and accomplishments.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Amicus Poloniae-- Friend of Polonia--Volunteer Free Legal Clinic on their 25th anniversary this October. On the third Saturday of each month since 1990, a large group of attorneys and other volunteers have gathered to meet and provide legal advice to individuals who would normally not be able to afford to hire an attorney. In 1990 Edward Moskal, the president of Polish National Alliance, met with an attorney to discuss an idea of helping people access legal aid and representation to Chicago's Polish community. Since then, the Clinic has provided attorneys, interpreters, clerks and other volunteers for thousands of individuals seeking help. Today, Frank Spula, the current president of PNA, continues to support Amicus Poloniae. The Clinic has also received continued support from the Polish National Alliance and the Chicago Volunteer Legal Services Foundation. CVLS has even recognized regular volunteers with a Distinguished Service Award. Mark Dobrzycki is the current chief administrator who administers the monthly meetings. Preceding him was Marianna Lach, who ran the meetings from the conception of the clinic until her passing in 2005. Attorneys Robert Groszek and Alexander Fiedotjew serve as the co-chairs. Alexander has volunteered with the Clinic since the start along with Zygmunt ``Ziggy'' Sokolnicki. Mr. Speaker, as the representative of a large portion of Polish constituents, I applaud Amicus Poloniae for their tireless work and dedication to the thousands of people in need. I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing and congratulating Amicus Poloniae on a successful past quarter-century.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the President of Shedd Aquarium, Ted A. Beattie. After more than two decades of leadership at a world renowned aquarium, Mr. Beattie is retiring with a career record dedicated to advancing conservation and education of animals and ecosystems. Mr. Beattie came to Shedd Aquarium in January 1994 as the third President/ CEO. During his tenure, his leadership and vision for the aquarium have led to the development and opening of six permanent exhibits, including the addition of Wild Reef and the re-imagination of Shedd's Abbott Oceanarium marine mammal pavilion. Beyond that, Mr. Beattie oversaw the establishment of the Daniel P. Haerther Center for Conservation and Research, which now includes a portfolio of eighteen global field research programs that span the world. He also added Shedd's onsite animal hospital and lab facilities within the A. Watson Armour III Center for Aquatic Animal Health and Welfare, introduced a Master Energy Road Map designed to cut the aquarium's energy consumption in half by 2020, opened the Shedd's Teen Learning Lab, and helped the aquarium earn a position in Chicago's top- attended paid cultural attraction for 17 of the last 21 years. It is clear that Mr. Beattie's contributions to the aquarium have been extensive, but more broadly, he has contributed to the positive transformation of Museum Campus. This 57 acre addition to Grant Park is the heart of exploration and discovery for millions of visitors along Chicago's lakefront. The impact of Mr. Beattie's leadership will be greatly missed by Shedd Aquarium and the City of Chicago. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring and celebrating his work and accomplishments.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, in these trying times, Congress needs to provide leadership and answer the question: What really keeps Americans safe? ISIS has directed U.S. and Western passport holders to launch attacks at home and abroad, and this threat requires our vigilance. But it is foolish to think we can effectively combat this terrorism blindly. Congress needs an accurate estimation of the number of foreign fighters who have traveled to terrorist havens like Syria. We need to know how many U.S. citizens are currently there, and we need to know the whereabouts of those who have left. Given that many of the terrorist attackers were European nationals, the need for this intelligence is crucial in the fight against ISIS and those who wish to harm the U.S. The Tracking Foreign Fighters in Terrorist Safe Havens Act provides for a more clear understanding of the real threats to U.S. security and allows Congress to work in partnership with our national security agencies to defend against these threats. I am happy to support this commonsense step to keep Americans safe.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, last week's shooting in San Bernardino, California, happened to be the second shooting of the day and the 355th of the year, equating to more mass shootings than days in the year. The social media pages of some of the most influential leaders in Congress expressed sympathy, thoughts, and prayers to the victims and their families. But what many failed to express was a commitment to act on this issue to make mass shootings and horrendous gun violence a far less common instance in America. While no grand solution exists to end all gun violence, we know from the experience of other countries that a combination of small but practical policy solutions can severely reduce it. But Congress continues to choose inaction. Last week, immediately following the devastating news coming out of Paris and San Bernardino, a majority of Members blocked the House from even debating bipartisan legislation to close the outrageous loophole that allows suspects on the FBI's terrorist watch list to buy guns. It may be hard for some to believe, but in the U.S., individuals on the Federal terrorist watch list are shockingly still not prohibited from purchasing firearms. Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, this means you can be on the terrorist watch list, considered by the Federal Government to be a potential risk to the national security of the United States and be prohibited from boarding a plane, but still have the ability to walk into any Walmart around the country and purchase a semiautomatic weapon. Current Federal law prohibits nine categories of dangerous people from purchasing or owning firearms; suspected terrorists on FBI watch lists, however, are not one of them. I don't have to explain to Members of the House the growing terrorist threat that this country is facing from lone-wolf extremists which are often unpredictable and incredibly difficult to thwart. Even just one unsophisticated lone-wolf extremist with a gun can do a remarkable amount of damage. This isn't some sort of theoretical threat either. A GAO investigation found that individuals on terrorist watch lists successfully purchased guns 1,321 times between February 2004 and December 2010. And that was before the rise of ISIS and their persistent social media campaign to recruit homegrown terrorists. Mr. Speaker, I have worked with Congresswoman Lowey in the Appropriations Committee on a commonsense amendment to allow the Attorney General to deny firearms sales to individuals known or suspected to be involved in terrorism. Unfortunately, our attempts to pass this amendment in committee have been rebuffed every time. But this week, we have an opportunity to change that. This week, we can show our enemies, intent on destroying Americans and our way of life, that Congress cares more about protecting the safety of its citizens than it does about the gun lobby by finally closing this terror gap in our gun laws. The American people, gun owning and not, overwhelmingly support responsible, commonsense gun reforms. If this isn't the definition of responsible and commonsense reform, I don't know what is. There is also widespread support specifically among gun owners for closing the gap. In 2013, a survey found that 80 percent of non-NRA gun owners support prohibiting people on the terrorist watch list from obtaining guns. Mr. Speaker, 71 percent of NRA gun owners support prohibiting people on this watch list from obtaining guns. It is naive to think that al Qaeda and ISIS are not paying attention to what is happening here in Congress. Fixing this loophole is simple, responsible, and the right thing to do for public safety. Let's not pass on this critical opportunity to close a dangerous loophole that threatens our national security.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, the Visa Waiver Program plays an absolutely essential role in growing the American economy. If we don't have foreign travel, it is just going to be Michigan competing against Wisconsin, Las Vegas competing against Orlando; and while Chicago has no peer, we are really not being productive. Also, over the last decade, we have successfully used the incentives of this program to require participating countries to implement the strictest security standards and increase vital intelligence sharing with U.S. law enforcement. As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I can't stress enough the value of intelligence we gather from the 38 Visa Waiver countries in thwarting terror plots and preventing attacks on our homeland. That is why I have been a longtime supporter of the Visa Waiver Program and for including important allies like Poland. But I have also led the effort to strengthen the security requirements of the program to respond to the evolving threats we face. The bipartisan JOLT Act, sponsored by myself and Mr. Heck, includes many of the security programs and reforms included in this bill we are debating today. It will also strengthen the security of the program and reduce fraud and also provide the U.S. with greater intelligence capacity. As policymakers, we must continuously reevaluate the reforms that are necessary to respond to keep America safe. The bill before us provides that proper balance by making the Visa Waiver Program even more secure and reaffirming our commitment to the program for the future.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, weeks ago, this body avoided a government shutdown by passing the Bipartisan Budget Act. Now we have to pass an omnibus. Unfortunately, many of our appropriations bills contain divisive policy riders that threaten to create another partisan standoff. There is an appropriate time and place to debate these provisions: in the authorizing committees. It seems that some Members have learned nothing from the brinksmanship that almost led to a government shutdown. It is hard enough to pass these measures without these divisive, controversial riders. We need to put the unnecessary fighting behind us. The Bipartisan Budget Act represents a chance for us to return to reasonable compromises and regular order. I call upon my colleagues to follow up on that accomplishment and pass a clean omnibus package.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, this week, more than 40,000 negotiators from 196 governments have descended on the French capital for the Paris climate summit. This summit provides the world with a critical opportunity to take a significant step toward creating an ambitious and effective global framework for addressing climate change. Climate change is no longer a problem for future generations. It is our problem, and we must act now. Paris gives us that opportunity. The science demonstrating the reality of climate change advances by the day. In fact, 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have occurred since the year 2000, and 2015 is on track to be the warmest year of all. No country, no matter how large or small, wealthy or poor, is immune to the detrimental effects we will face if we do not address this global climate crisis. The good news is that there has been quite a bit of global action over the past few months leading up to the Paris summit. Nearly 180 countries, covering more than 95 percent of the global greenhouse gas emissions, have pledged to take steps to reduce CO2 emissions. A U.N. report shows that the pledges submitted so far represent a substantial step in global action that will significantly curtail the world's carbon trajectory. If those pledges are implemented, global warming would slow to roughly 3 degrees by 2100. While this isn't enough to meet U.N. targets, it is better than the 4- to 5-degree increase if nothing were done. With such a significant and impactful opportunity in front of us, many eyes are on the U.S. What will we do? How will we act? As the world's largest economy and the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide, we cannot stand by and do nothing. Thanks to President Obama, we have made real progress in advancing our goals of reducing emissions and improving our air quality. Earlier this year the administration finalized the Clean Power Plan, which establishes the first ever national standards to limit carbon pollution from existing power plants. This is a plan that will prevent up to 3,600 premature deaths, 90,000 asthma attacks in children, and 300,000 missed workdays and schooldays, all the while creating tens of thousands of jobs and saving American families money on their energy bills. Right now world leaders at the Paris Climate Summit are working to forge international progress on the climate crisis. So it comes as no surprise that my colleagues here in Congress are taking action on this important topic as well. Not so much. In Paris, they are developing a road map to gradually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In Washington, we are voting on resolutions that would nullify the only national plan we have to address carbon pollution. In Paris, the burden of slashing greenhouse gases is being shared by everyone, not just the wealthy countries. In Washington, some, the majority, are reluctant to take any blame for this growing crisis. This all makes perfect sense. Right? At a time when the world is coming together to address one of the defining issues of our lifetime, some of my colleagues have decided to sabotage American leadership on this critical topic. This is not what American families need, and this is certainly not what the world needs to see from a global leader. Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``Knowing what's right doesn't mean much unless you do what's right.'' We know we are running out of time to mitigate climate change. If we fail to take meaningful action now, that knowledge will mean nothing. As with any global challenge, climate change will not be solved in one fell swoop. No single action, no single government, and no single summit will decisively address one of the greatest global threats our world has ever seen. But Paris does allow us the opportunity to devise a common purpose to create a better world for future generations. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, vote against these harmful environmental riders on the floor this week, and allow America to be the leader on climate change.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, when the average American wants to learn about a policy, where do they turn for information? Often, the answer is the 24-hour news cycle, often filled by talking heads and sensationalism; or, to social media and message boards, where anyone can post anything--credible or completely misinformed. The American public is no longer being informed by the likes of Walter Cronkite and Edward Murrow, and it is making our public debate increasingly partisan, polarized, and misinformed. What few realize or like to admit is that there is a way Congress can help elevate the debate and educate our constituents with neutral, unbiased, nonpartisan information from the Congressional Research Service, or CRS. For over 100 years, CRS has served as Congress' publicly funded think tank. Because they serve policymakers on both sides of the aisle, CRS researchers produce exemplary work that is accurate, nonpartisan, and easy to understand. Despite the fact that CRS receives over $100 million from taxpayers each year, its reports are not made available to the public. Instead, constituents must request individual reports through a congressional office. This has led to several undesirable consequences. Well-connected lobbyists have the easiest access to these reports, unlike the average American. Second, while nonprofits make some reports available online, there is no guarantee that they will remain available and up-to-date. And most outrageously, a small industry has sprung up reselling these reports for exorbitant fees. In other words, businesses are making a profit by selling publicly funded work, work that ultimately belongs to the people. Keeping these reports in the hands of Congress and beltway insiders is selfish and indefensible. I understand that allowing the public to access these reports will not answer all the questions constituents have about the work that happens on Capitol Hill, but it underscores the broader need for increased transparency in Congress and government. Public trust in government has reached historic lows, causing too many Americans to simply give up on Washington and the mission of government. The best way to rebuild the public's trust and promote a more efficient and effective government is by furthering government accountability through increased transparency. It is time to recognize that educators, students, media, and everyday citizens deserve access to CRS reports and that this access gives our constituents vital information about the issues, policies, and budgets we are debating here in Congress. That is why Congressman Lance and I introduced H. Res. 34, which directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to maintain a centralized public database for nonconfidential CRS reports. This resolution gives the public tools to cut through the misinformation they face, gives them access to something they are already paying for, and empowers the American people to hold Congress accountable for the decisions we make. The steps toward a more open and transparent government may seem modest to some, but, in reality, they have a huge impact on how government serves the people. The mission of government matters, and if we are truly here to serve the people, then we owe it to them to operate in an open and transparent manner. Let's give the public the information we are basing our decisions on. I urge my colleagues to stand up for transparency and accountability by supporting H. Res. 34. Information is power, and that is exactly what the American people deserve.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, John Muir, a naturalist, author, and environmental philosopher, once said, ``When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.'' This couldn't be truer when it comes to the effect climate change is having on the biodiversity of our planet. We can't solve the climate change crisis without realizing how interconnected its impacts truly are. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted, assuming that current trends in burning fossil fuel continue, by the year 2100, the surface of the Earth will warm on an average of 6 degrees Celsius. That kind of potential for rapid and lasting climate warming poses a significant challenge for biodiversity conservation. It may seem obvious, but the places that plants and animals can exist are limited by factors such as sunlight, precipitation, and temperature. A polar bear can't exist in Brazil, just as a lion can't exist in Antarctica. You won't find palm trees in Greenland, just like you won't find pine trees in Argentina. So, as climate changes, the abundance and distribution of plants and animals will also change. Climate change alone is expected to threaten approximately one-quarter, possibly more, of all species on land with extinction by the year 2050. That means climate change will surpass habitat loss as the biggest threat to life on land. Because of climate change, birds lay eggs earlier in the year, plants bloom earlier, and mammals come out of hibernation sooner. These changes may sound insignificant, but they drastically impact the life cycle of each population and, therefore, any species that rely on it. We are literally altering the timeline of nature. The need to protect plant and animals species might not be a top priority for some of my colleagues, but I urge them to consider the other impacts. Twelve plant species provide approximately 75 percent of our total food supply. What is not generally appreciated is that these relatively few species depend on hundreds and thousands of other species for their productivity. Our food supply is not only based on the food we eat, but insects and birds that pollinate crop flowers and feed on crop pests. For example, more than 80 percent of the 264 crops grown in the European Union depend on insect pollinators. A lack of biodiversity can lead to a decreased ability to produce medicine, as key plants are lost to extinction. And without specific plants, such as grasses and trees that have evolved to resist the spread of wildfires or mitigate the impacts of flooding, we are losing a key shield in protecting against natural disasters. These are nature's defenders, and we are losing them. In my own backyard, these climate changes are expected to impact regional biodiversity in a variety of direct and indirect ways. The Chicago wilderness, which expands across Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Michigan, will likely experience changes in the timing of natural events, such as blooming, migration, and the onset of hibernation. It could also cause a loss of suitable habitat and a disruption of ecological communities due to different responses to climate change. These impacts are not limited to our land, plants, and animals. Changes in biodiversity will have significant impacts on our waterways as well. In the Great Lakes, native plant and animal species will differ wildly in their responses to changing stream temperature and hydrology. Wetland plant communities are continually adapting to changing water levels. However, the extreme changes we see as a result of climate changes, such as droughts and flooding, create more unstable environments for species. Protecting our biodiversity does more than save plants and animals. It protects agriculture, medicine, and the overall safety of our communities. From the beginning of time, nature has fed us, cured us and protected us. Now it is our turn. If we let one piece fail, we are putting the entire system at risk. We need to protect plant and animal species from an ever-changing climate if we want to secure a healthy and prosperous future for our children. I urge my colleagues to stop ignoring the science and support Federal legislation that acts on climate change and addresses these grave biological threats.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, last week the House finally came to its senses and overwhelmingly passed the reauthorization of the Export- Import Bank. I am encouraged to see that it has been included in the long-term highway bill we will be considering this week. We know the Ex-Im Bank helps American businesses gain access to critical markets overseas and is a vital piece of our export strategy. But thanks to the vocal minority, the Bank's charter expired for the first time in its history on July 1. This doesn't just hurt the likes of Boeing or GE. It hurts small businesses, many of which are minority-and women-owned. Last year nearly 90 percent of the Ex-Im transactions directly supported small businesses without costing taxpayers a penny. That is why I urge all 313 Members who voted for Ex-Im reauthorization to oppose any attempts in the highway bill that significantly weaken or eliminate the Bank. Now is the time for supporters to stop standing on the sidelines and start standing up for American workers and exporters.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, as LGBT History Month draws to a close, I rise today to recognize Chicago LGBT activist Henry Gerber, a man well ahead of his time. Mr. Gerber founded the Society for Human Rights in 1924. It was the first chartered gay rights organization in the United States. His home in Chicago's north side, my district, served as the society's headquarters, and from there he published the first-known gay interest periodical in the U.S. Unfortunately, his activism carried risks. Less than a year after he founded the society, police raided his home, arrested him, and confiscated his possessions. He was put on trial three times. Although he was never convicted of a crime, he lost his life savings, his reputation, and his job. Thankfully, our country has come a long way in the fight for equality, but we can all learn from Henry Gerber's struggle for human rights in the face of overwhelming adversity.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, in 1983, President Ronald Reagan wrote to then-Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, urging him to raise the debt ceiling. In his letter, he said: ``The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: The Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.'' Twenty-three years later, we now find ourselves 1 week away from defaulting on our debt for the first time in our Nation's history. Instead of making sure we preserve the full faith and credit of the United States, as President Reagan had done 18 times during his tenure, some want to hold our economy hostage to extract ideological wins. This is not the time for partisan bickering and political gamesmanship, not when it means delaying Social Security benefits for seniors and those with disabilities, withholding paychecks from our brave Active Duty servicemembers, and postponing interest payments on government-issued bonds. We have a responsibility to live up to our obligations no matter what. That is not politics; it is basic governing. The longer we wait to meet our obligations and raise the debt ceiling, the closer we get to another credit rating downgrade, a spike in interest rates, and a severe slowdown in economic growth. This is not an overstatement. Let's look back at what happened in 2013 during the last debt ceiling standoff. Just the possibility of default caused rates on Treasuries to rise by almost half a percentage point. That cost taxpayers as much as $70 million. This time around, if we actually default, market forecasters estimate that interest payments on Treasuries would increase Federal deficits by $10 billion over the short term and by $70 billion a year after that. That is money that wouldn't be going to critical investments in research and development, education, and infrastructure. On top of that, higher interest rates on Treasuries could lead to a 1 percent reduction in GDP. That would mean the loss of almost 700,000 jobs, and that is just a conservative estimate. Make no mistake, every American would be impacted. Middle class families looking to buy a home would face higher mortgage rates. A half a percentage point increase in mortgage rates would increase the lifetime cost of an average home loan by almost $19,000. Small-business owners would face difficulties trying to secure new loans as lending tightens up. And students will have an even harder time trying to pay for college as student loan rates skyrocket. We owe it to our constituents to move toward responsible governing and away from governing by crisis, which has become all too common around here. The bipartisan budget package unveiled last night affirms the full faith and credit of the United States and represents real progress for hardworking American families who are tired of threats of default and partisan gridlock. Now is not the time for politics. Now is the time for thoughtful consideration, bipartisan compromise, and, most importantly, finding a path forward for the American people.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, this morning, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that last month was the warmest September in recorded history. Our reality can no longer be ignored. Climate change is here, and communities across the country--and the world--are feeling its effects. Just take the events we have seen unfold in 2015 as an example. In April, drought-stricken California witnessed a snowpack with virtually no snow. On the other side of the country, Boston recorded its snowiest year with 110 inches between July 2014 and June 2015. Boston had so much snow, it did not melt until mid-July. 2015 also brought us the wettest months ever recorded in the U.S. within the 121 years of NOAA's recordkeeping; and this year, Tropical Storm Ana became the second-earliest tropical storm in history to make landfall in the U.S., in early May. So what does all of this mean? It means that we are no longer at a place where talking about climate change is enough. We need to act, and we need to act now. I am proud that we have a President who is taking actions like reducing dangerous greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change. Altering our current policies and enacting new ones will help reduce the impacts of climate change in the future. But mitigation is only one piece of the solution. We also need to adapt our policies to handle the effects of our already-changing climate in the present. Climate change is already happening; and adaptation to climate change is the only way we can help protect the people, the infrastructure, businesses, and ecosystems that are already threatened. We know that societies have adjusted to and have coped with changes in climate with different degrees of success; but our modern life is tailored to the stable climate we have been accustomed to. As the President recently pointed out, our climate is changing faster than we are adapting to it. While climate change is a global issue, it is often felt on a hyper- local scale, so our cities have to be at the front line of adaptation. We need communities that have better flood defenses, plans for dealing with higher temperatures and heat waves, as well as better management of our water storage and use. Some cities are already taking steps to create these adaptation plans. Roughly 20 percent of cities around the globe have adopted adaptation strategies. My city of Chicago is included on that list. The most obvious changes that Chicago is dealing with are hotter summers and more intense heat waves. Increased temperatures are leading to countless unforeseen consequences, such as heat-related illness and a deterioration in air quality. Higher temperatures are also boosting the demand for electricity, placing stress on our power plants. Heavy rains and snow are becoming more frequent in winter and spring. Increasing downpours make travel more dangerous, pollute our drinking water, damage crops, and disrupt infrastructure and transportation across the city. But adaptation means more than protecting our cities. We must also protect our national defense. Many of our most critical military installations are already at risk. A 2011 National Research Council report found that 128 U.S. military sites could be impacted by a sea-level rise of just 3 feet. Of those 128 sites, 56 are naval facilities valued at $100 billion. Recent hurricanes have pushed water levels to dangerous heights in Norfolk, Virginia, threatening the largest naval base in the world. As sea levels rise and storms intensify, climate change threatens to require the relocation of that naval base. This proves that local and State efforts are simply not enough. We need congressional action to produce lasting solutions that address the root causes of climate change and to prepare us for a very different future. In closing, I defer to Charles Darwin, who said, ``It is not the strongest of the species that survives nor the most intelligent; it is the one that is most adaptable to change.'' I urge my colleagues to heed this warning and adapt to the reality in front of us.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday Americans witnessed yet another tragedy with the fatal shooting of nine people in Roseburg, Oregon, five young kids who had so much more life left to live, three adults who had gone back to school to better themselves and their families, and an assistant professor of English who used his writing talents to teach others, all gone too soon. Their lives are lost in tragedy, the kind of tragedy that our Nation has suffered with increasing regularity. There have been more mass shootings this year than there have been calendar days, 294 mass shootings in less than 280 days. In 2015 alone, there have been nearly 40,000 gun violence tragedies, with nearly 10,000 people killed and 20,000 wounded. Yet, sadly, each gun violence tragedy is met with another tragedy here in Congress, the tragedy of inaction. People are dying. People are dying from gun violence every single day in America, and this Congress does nothing. As President Obama said last week, ``We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction.'' I have been a Member of the House of Representatives for nearly 7 years. In that time, tens of thousands of lives have been lost, but this body has refused to hold even one hearing addressing the gun violence epidemic that is plaguing our country. In that time, not even once have we had a vote on the floor on anything, anything related to gun violence, and it is not for lack of ideas. We know from other countries what works. Other countries, not much different from ours, have tackled this issue with remarkable results. More than 90 gun-related bills offering various ways--large and small--for us to lessen the death toll are just sitting in committee waiting for action; yet, we refuse to even try. And forget about new gun laws. Congress has made it harder for law enforcement to carry out current laws. It has gotten so bad that Congress refuses to allow Federal agencies to even study this issue because they are afraid of what doctors and scientists will tell them. In June, during the Labor-HHS-Education markup and just 1 week after the tragedy in Charleston, an amendment to end the 20-year prohibition on Federal funding on research related to gun violence was defeated by a unanimous Republican majority. Congress refuses to act and stands in the way when others try. Why is this issue different than others? What is it about these lives that matter less than those lost to terrorism or car accidents or cancer? Unless the status quo in Congress changes, we will continue to lose American lives to gun violence. In June, I urged my colleagues to break the silence, stop the violence, and start the conversation about gun violence in America. We were reeling from the tragedy in Charleston, and I recounted the other lives we had lost to guns in the Navy Yard, Northern Illinois University, Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Roanoke, Sandy Hook, Tucson, and Fort Hood. I asked my colleagues when will enough be enough? When will we realize and acknowledge that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries? When will we finally be able to have a national discussion about gun violence? The answer by House leadership has been a resounding silence. The first tragedy of last week was the loss of nine American lives. The second tragedy is the continuing inaction of Congress to do anything about it. No legislation will stop every tragedy, but passing commonsense gun laws will at least stop some. It is the least we can do to honor the memory of those we have lost to gun violence and prevent the list of lives lost from growing.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Laurette Kittler, retired Drama Teacher, St. Benedict Preparatory School, on her induction into their Alumni Hall of Fame. From the 1950's to the mid 1990's, Mrs. Laurette Kittler not only taught several generations of St. Benedict High School students, but inspired them to be better people. In teaching drama, Mrs. Kittler was able to marry her love of theater with her love of teaching, and because of this she was able to bring a strong dedication to the classroom. Mrs. Kittler was always willing to put in the extra effort, staying after hours to help her students flourish. Mrs. Kittler played a big part in her students' lives, instilling them with a dynamism and confidence that would help them succeed in their future undertakings. Respected by her peers and students alike her classrooms were always full of passion and admiration. The hallmark of a great teacher is the lasting influence they leave on their students, and Mrs. Kittler's legacy is one of distinction. Mrs. Kittler was described by her former students as, a ``Guiding light'', ``a strong positive force'', and ``the best [teacher] I ever had''. The importance of great teachers cannot be over stated, and so for her decades of service Mrs. Kittler will be inducted in to the St. Benedict's Alumni Hall of Fame on October 24th. She will also have a scholarship set up in her honor that will be given out to a St. Benedict high school drama student. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Mrs. Laurette Kittler for her invaluable and exemplary leadership to the many students she has taught. I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating Mrs. Kittler on an accomplished career and a well-deserved honor.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has described the Republican House and Senate as a ``responsible right-of- center governing majority.'' But how responsible is it that we are about to start a new fiscal year with no plan for how to fund our government? We are hours away from a shutdown, and Congress has yet to even begin budget negotiations. Instead of doing the job the American people sent us here to do, we are celebrating that maybe we have found a way to keep the government open for 2 months--2 months. That is what we consider a bipartisan victory these days. Now, we may prevent a shutdown today, but let's be clear. Doing the bare minimum to keep the government from closing is not responsible. It is hardly governing at all. The American people sent us here to take on the big issues and to get things done. They want us to fight for infrastructure, for education, for jobs, not just to keep the lights on. We are letting partisan games get in the way of governing, and it is not only hurting our government, it is hurting our constituents. Unreliable, unpredictable short-term funding prevents the government from operating effectively and efficiently, and it costs taxpayers money. We are short-term funding, and we are ignoring changes in our policy priorities and restricting agencies from shifting dollars around to meet emerging challenges. Defense officials recently warned that forcing the Pentagon to operate on a short-term CR would hurt our national security by restricting our ability to respond to new threats. Moreover, a CR severely limits the government's ability to plan ahead or start new projects. That is because there is no guarantee the money will be there in 2 months. How do agencies manage this uncertainty? By freezing hiring and training, shortening terms for grants and contracts, forgoing maintenance, and delaying scheduled pay raises. In addition, agencies have to waste countless resources preparing for contingency plans for shutdowns that may or may not happen. Republicans like to talk about running government more like a business. Is this how they would run a business? What successful business budgets 2 months at a time? What we need and what Democrats have been demanding is for Republicans to sit down with us and craft a long-term, bipartisan budget so we can finally get rid of the harmful, across-the-board spending cuts of sequestration so we can reprioritize and restore funding in areas like education, R&D, infrastructure, and national security in a fiscally responsible way so we can plan for the future. The best way to do that is to return to regular order. That means offering pro-growth budget resolutions that address our long-term fiscal challenges in a responsible way. No partisan austerity plans that keep the indiscriminate and harmful sequestration in place. It also means bringing appropriation bills to the floor free of ideological policy riders. There is a time and place to debate controversial issues. That is why we have authorizing committees. I am confident that, as long as we can put partisan politics aside and ignore obstructionist demands, we can get back to passing budgets under regular order, not a partisan budget that fails to address the sequester, not a CR that operates to keep agencies from planning more than 2 months out, and definitely not the threat of another shutdown. My hope is with the new Republican leadership will come a renewed effort to bring back long-term budgeting under regular order. That is the kind of responsible government the American people expect of us. That is the kind of responsible governing that the American people deserve.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, the right to choice, the right for a woman to have control of her own body is guaranteed by the Constitution and has been for 40 years. Defunding Planned Parenthood will not change that. Instead, defunding Planned Parenthood would lead to a decrease in access to contraception and an increase in unplanned pregnancies. With 40 percent of unplanned pregnancies ending in abortion, defunding Planned Parenthood would inevitably result in more abortions, not fewer. If you really want to reduce the number of abortions, you should be lobbying to increase funding for Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide safe and effective birth control. So let's fund Planned Parenthood, keep our government open, and move on to more pressing issues for the American people.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, there was a time when climate change was a concern for future generations, a time when we focused on predicting the possible problems and brainstorming the possible solutions, a time when the threat was real, but we still had time to act. We had not come face-to-face with our tipping point. That time has passed. President Obama put it best when he said: ``We are the first generation to feel the impacts of climate change, and the last generation that can still do something about it.'' The time to act is now, and the call to action cannot be any clearer. Despite the fact that more than 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies are in agreement that climate change is real and humans are significantly to blame, my colleagues continue to debate its validity. Well, if the devastating global and environmental threats aren't proof enough, let me share some of the negative impacts climate change is having on our air quality and public health now. Simply put, climate change and air pollution make a dangerous pair. In fact, air pollution is among the most serious, indirect health effects of global climate change. The same power plants that release harmful carbon dioxide into our atmosphere also create dangerous levels of soot, smog, and ground-level ozone. The result is a combination of ozone and fine particles that can have devastating health impacts. In all, 147 million people in the U.S., nearly half of this Nation--our Nation--are breathing unhealthy air. And the news is far worse in Beijing, where a new study claims that the air in Beijing is so polluted, breathing it does as much damage to the lungs as smoking 40 cigarettes a day. That is simply unacceptable. To make matters worse, the warmer temperatures from climate change are only increasing the frequency of days with unhealthy levels of ground-level ozone. If emissions of air pollutants remain fixed at today's levels until 2050, warming from climate change alone could increase the number of red ozone alert days by 68 percent in the 50 largest Eastern U.S. cities. Studies have also linked breathing and ozone pollution to an increased risk of premature deaths and difficulty breathing. If there are no changes in regulatory controls, the CDC predicts up to 4,300 additional premature deaths in the United States by the year 2050 from combined ozone and particle health effects. The good news is that air quality has improved dramatically in many American cities over the past 40 years due to the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act has a track record of cutting dangerous pollution and has prevented more than 400,000 premature deaths. In fact, it has helped to cut ground-level ozone by more than 25 percent since 1980 and reduced mercury emissions by 45 percent since 1990. If that isn't enough, the economic value of these improvements is estimated to reach almost $2 trillion by the year 2020. The recently announced Clean Power Plan offers us the opportunity we need to continue to better protect public health. It is projected to contribute to significant ozone pollution reductions, resulting in important benefits including avoiding up to 3,600 premature deaths, 90,000 asthma attacks in children, and 1,700 heart attacks. However, the continued effects of climate change and our inability to act are impairing our continued progress. Climate change is creating conditions that make it harder for us to clean up our air and reduce pollution. Without addressing one problem, we eliminate our progress on another. Unfortunately, Members of this body use every opportunity possible to attack the Clean Air Act and now the Clean Power Plan. These unprecedented assaults block, weaken, or delay a host of long overdue clean air safeguards. As my colleagues continue to stand in our own way, we are harming the environment and ultimately hurting ourselves. Mr. Speaker, climate change is a direct threat to humanity, and it is time we reexamine how we can think about it, talk about it, and respond to this growing problem. We may be part of the problem, but we also have the unique opportunity to become part of the solution. I think Pope Francis put it best when he said: ``Yet all is not lost. Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to heed these wise words and make a choice to act on climate change to protect our health. We cannot afford to wait any longer.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge National Clinical Nurse Specialist Recognition Week, which is taking place from September 1st through September 7th. There are over 72,000 clinical nurse specialists in the United States, and they are an integral part of our health care system. Clinical nurse specialists deliver high quality health care by diagnosing, treating, and managing patients. These critical health care providers identify and implement best practices, which reduce health care costs. The expertise of clinical nurse specialists will be crucial as our nation's population continues to age and demand for health care grows. The National Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists represents this important profession nationally. I would like to congratulate the association on celebrating their 20th anniversary this year. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing National Clinical Nurse Specialist Recognition Week, as well as all the clinical nurse specialists in this country who help ensure that we all stay healthy.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, for the past 40 years, antichoice politicians have convinced Congress to maintain Hyde amendment language while pushing for restricting access even further. For four decades, the Hyde amendment has denied too many women their constitutional right to choose by prohibiting the use of Federal funds to pay for abortion services. The fact that this restriction discriminates against women with limited resources at the very time in which they need the support the most is unconscionable. We have had enough of letting the majority restrict access to abortion services when the majority of Americans support a woman's right to choose. It is time to change course. The EACH Woman Act ensures health coverage of these services for every woman, no matter how much she earns, how she is insured, or where she lives. I urge my colleagues to be bold, end Hyde, and support the EACH Woman Act.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, we are 16 days away from the latest expiration of the highway trust fund. This is nothing new. Over the last 6 years, Congress has passed 33 stop-gap funding bills to extend transportation funding. Today we will vote on the 34th. Congress has repeatedly failed to provide the long-term investments in transportation that we so badly need. Without serious long-term investments, we simply will not be able to compete in today's global economy. Europe now invests twice as much as we do in transportation. China invests four times as much. Our crumbling infrastructure, rated a D-minus by the American Society of Engineers, is slowing our economic growth. State and local governments are being forced to cut back on their construction projects. Private sector companies are being forced to stop hiring workers and investing in capital. It is time to provide American businesses and American workers with transportation funding certainty. It is past time to pass a long-term transportation bill that will grow our economy and create jobs.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished career of Aphrodite Loutas. After over 28 years of government service, Ms. Loutas will be retiring as Chief of Staff for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. A Chicago resident since 1972, Ms. Loutas began her outstanding career with Immigration and Naturalization Services in 1987 as a Supervisory Legalization Officer for the Legalization Program. She joined the District in 1990 as Immigration Examiner and became a supervisor in citizenship from 1991 through 1997. In 1997, she was asked to serve in headquarters for a year as Central Region Coordinator for the Headquarters Office of Naturalization Operations. In 1999, Ms. Loutas was appointed to Special Assistant to the District Director in the Chicago district in and contributed to that capacity until 2005. Ms. Loutas then served as the Assistant Director for Mission Support, where she worked diligently to secure America's promise as a nation of immigrants and ensure the integrity of our immigration system to constituents. She was named Chief of Staff of the Chicago's 14th District office in 2009. In 2011, she was honored with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Director's Heritage Award for her outstanding service and dedication. I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Aphrodite Loutas for the work she has done for the 14th District, her community, and this great nation. I thank her for her invaluable service, and wish her well in all future endeavors.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan once said: ``Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.'' When President Reagan made those remarks in 1980, he recognized then what many can't seem to understand now: efforts to undermine unions are an attack on workers' rights. Unions have long been the foundation of our middle class and helped create the most competitive workforce in the world. The 40-hour workweek, minimum wage, sick leave, workers comp, overtime pay, and child labor laws are just a few of the basic labor rights that unions have championed over the years that many now take for granted; yet for all the good that unions have done to empower all workers across this country, there has been a recent revival in the war against them, and the weapon of choice has been right to work laws. Don't be fooled by the name. The only thing right to work laws do is unfairly allow free-riding workers to benefit from union-negotiated contracts without having to contribute their fair share in the fight. The laws do not, as many supporters complain, protect workers from being forced to become union members. In fact, Federal law already restricts this. In union States, workers covered by union-negotiated contracts can only be required to pay for the cost of bargaining and not for any other union activities. However, over the last few years, there has been an alarming increase in antiunion sentiment. Currently, half of our States have right to work laws, with Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin recently passing their own versions. In my own home State of Illinois, Governor Rauner has made passing right to work a top priority. In fact, he is making this a cornerstone of his first-term legislative agenda. The idea behind his right to work law is that by increasing the number of free-riding workers, unions will be forced to drastically reduce their budgets, weakening their ability to negotiate stronger contracts and defend the rights of American workers, but the evidence clearly shows how misguided this stance is and the attacks on organized labor truly are. For instance, research shows that 7 of the 10 States with the highest unemployment rates are right to work States. On top of that, we know that even if half of the counties in Illinois adopt right to work laws, we would see the State's annual economic output shrink by $1.5 billion, labor income fall by $1.3 billion, and an increase in both racial and gender income inequality. If right to work laws are not actually good for the economy, what are they good for? Right to work laws do a great job at harming hard- working middle class families, widening income inequality, and weakening unions. Right to work States have seen almost a 10 percent decline in unionization, which has undermined growth in wages and led to the deterioration in workplace safety. In right to work States, wages for all workers, not just unionized workers, are over 3 percent lower than in non-right to work States. That is about $1,500 less per year in the pockets of teachers, firefighters, nurses, and other hard-working Americans. Furthermore, injuries and deaths in right to work States are much higher than in non-right to work States. In the high-risk environment of construction, where unions have played a fundamental role in demanding adequate safety standards, deaths are 34 percent higher in right to work States than in non-right to work States. As you can see, right to work is not right for our country, not right for our States, and not right for our workers. Using right to work as a strategy to lower wages and attract more businesses is not a suitable and sustainable strategy. Instead of focusing on attacking unions and middle class workers, Governors should focus on fixing broken budgets and investing in our schools, public safety programs, and transportation systems. That is the real recipe for economic success. Let's stand up against right to work laws and stand up for the right to organize, the right to a safe job, and the right to a fair wage.