Mike Quigley

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that anyone is born with an inclination to hate, but sometimes, even in the year 2013, it's easy to forget. Not one of us begins this life hating that which is different. Not one of us begins this life fearing those who are different from ourselves. As children, we recognize differences; we wonder about them and question why. But as children, we don't hate or fear. People must learn to hate. You've got to be taught to hate and fear, carefully taught. In the second act of the great musical ``South Pacific,'' Lieutenant Joe Cable sings a song about racial prejudice, entitled, ``You've Got to Be Carefully Taught.'' The lyrics of the song confront prejudice at its core, explaining the simple truth that discrimination is not inherent; it's imposed--imposed by others who once had it imposed upon them in the vicious cycle of prejudice and fear. One isn't born with an inherent aversion to those of a different skin tone. One has to be taught to fear a young, unarmed black man in a hoodie. One has to be taught to fear minorities voting. You've got to be carefully taught. I also believe discrimination plays a role in opposition to same-sex marriage. One isn't born thinking gay people should be treated differently than straight people. One has to be taught to fear equality for all. You've got to be carefully taught. Discrimination has played a role in our immigration policy from the late 19th century to today. But people aren't naturally hostile to those who speak a different language or come from a different place. They had to be taught to fear the dreamers who are American in all but citizenship or their parents who risked their lives to make a better life for their children. You've got to be carefully taught. When ``South Pacific'' debuted in 1949, the song ``You've Got to Be Carefully Taught'' almost didn't make the cut. Rodgers and Hammerstein were told the song was too controversial, too preachy, too inappropriate for the musical stage. The song was so controversial that some cities in the deep South would not allow the musical to be played on their stages. Lawmakers in Georgia even tried to outlaw such entertainment with one legislator arguing that a song justifying interracial marriage was implicitly a threat to the American way of life. But Rodgers and Hammerstein insisted the song be sung because it told the truth, and nothing combats fear better than the truth. ``South Pacific'' premiered more than a half century ago, yet its lessons are perhaps even more relevant today. We have come a long way since the Jim Crow era, but the truth is that discrimination, while perhaps not as blatant, is alive and well. Despite all the progress we have made, we are still taught to be fearful of differences, to discriminate against those of a different race or gender or background or sexual orientation. We tragically, although sometimes unknowingly, allow that discrimination to influence our actions. It is those actions, whether on a street corner in Florida or here on the floor of the House of Representatives, that teach yet another generation to hate and fear. As lawmakers, we have a responsibility to root out discrimination, to impart upon a new generation a philosophy of tolerance, and to embrace our differences. By confronting discrimination head on, we can finally stop the vicious cycle of prejudice and fear. Nelson Mandela said it best: People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite. You have to be carefully taught, Mr. Speaker. The teaching must begin in our hearts and with our children.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 50th anniversary of James Darby and Patrick Bova. Since 1963, Jim and Patrick have been in a loving, devoted relationship and together they have fought to secure marriage equality in Illinois and to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve openly in the armed forces. I am proud to recognize this Chicago couple who have been at the forefront of the fight for equality in Illinois and across the country. Jim was born and raised on the south side of Chicago, where he worked in the stockyards before enlisting in the Navy. He served four years during the Korean War as a Communications Technician Second Class. In this role, Jim worked as a cryptographer and Russian linguist and earned both the National Defense Service Medal and the Naval Occupation Service Medal. Patrick grew up in Pennsylvania and attended Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. before moving to Chicago in 1960 to attend the University of Chicago Graduate School in Education. After Jim's honorable discharge from the military, he met Patrick in Chicago on July 17, 1963. They have been in a committed relationship ever since. Jim spent a 29-year career as a teacher in the Chicago Public Schools where he was recognized in 1985 as the Outstanding Teacher of the Year. Patrick spent a career working at the National Opinion Research Center. When Illinois legalized same-sex civil unions in 2011, Jim and Patrick were among the first couples to share in that new form of partnership. Together, Jim and Patrick have been working to ensure equality for all Americans serving in our armed forces. Jim founded the Chicago chapter of American Veterans for Equal Rights (AVER) in 1992 and served for many years on the organization's executive board. Jim and Patrick have attended every AVER conference since 1992 and fought together to end discrimination against gay men and lesbians serving in the United States Armed Forces and for the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Jim and Patrick are also active in the fight for marriage equality in Illinois. As the lead plaintiffs in Darby v. Orr, the case before the Illinois Supreme Court challenging the ban on marriage equality as unconstitutional, Jim's and Patrick's advocacy and testimony have been instrumental in the fight to bring equal rights to all citizens of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognition of the 50th Anniversary of James Darby and Patrick Bova, a Chicago couple whose patriotic advocacy is improving the lives of gay and lesbian Americans in Illinois and across the country.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I respect and have enjoyed this thoughtful debate that we've had in the last few minutes about this issue, particularly because it raises critical issues about our relationships with our NATO allies, but let's look at the big picture here. The 2010 START Treaty with Russia, which passed the Senate in 2009, requires that Russia and the United States reduce their stockpiles to a maximum of 1,550 nuclear weapons by 2018. Let's look at what people are talking about now, people we respect. General James Cartwright, retired vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former commander of the U.S. nuclear forces; Richard Burt, a former chief nuclear arms negotiator; Chuck Hagel, current Secretary of Defense; Thomas Pickering, a former ambassador to Russia; and General John J. Sheehan, a former senior NATO official, all issued a report noting that the United States' nuclear deterrence could be guaranteed with 900 nuclear weapons. According to General Cartwright: The world has changed, but the current arsenal carries the baggage of the Cold War . . . What is it we're really trying to deter? Our current arsenal does not address the threats of the 21st century. Let's talk about our NATO allies. Steve Andreasen, the Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control on the National Security Council, recently argued: Wouldn't it be more reassuring and wiser burden-sharing to spend this money on weapons and capabilities that are more relevant to the threats NATO faces today? Indeed, why would allies be reassured by an investment that provides no real military capability and no modicum of deterrence beyond that already provided by the U.S., Britain, and France, each of which has nuclear arsenals capable of obliterating any adversary? The biggest concerns for NATO right now include threats from Mali and Syria, nuclear proliferation and terrorism. The B61 can do nothing to address those threats. I close by reminding us that four great American statesmen--George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn--argued for the elimination of these short-range nuclear weapons designed to be forward deployed--that is, the B61--in their landmark 2007 op-ed.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment with my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis). Our amendment is very straightforward. It simply cuts the $23.7 million from the B61 nuclear bomb not requested by the Department of Energy. The National Nuclear Security Administration requested a 45 percent increase for a gold-plated upgrade plan for the B61 nuclear bomb. The committee provided the 45 percent increase in funding for a portion of the most expensive $10 billion upgrade plan. Then they provided an additional $23.7 million. Our amendment simply cuts these additional funds provided beyond what the agency requested. Let me back up for a minute and explain what the $560 million in this bill is actually going to pay for. At a time when we are slashing funds for research at the NIH, failing to fund our crumbling infrastructure, and underinvesting in our children's education, we are increasing funding to keep hundreds of nuclear bombs in operation that we will never use. The Cold War is over. Mr. Chairman, I thought today that I was back in a ``Twilight Zone'' episode--well, they're all like this--where you woke up in the morning and it is 50 years earlier--it's 1963. The Cold War is still raging. Despite the fact that security experts of all political stripes, including conservatives Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, have called for deep cuts to our outsized nuclear stockpile. General Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the ``military utility'' of the B61 is ``practically nil.'' As the U.S. and Russia work to reduce their nuclear stockpiles and shift funds to meet today's threats, the B61 in Europe will be one of the first weapons cut. Just last month in Berlin, the President stated that he wants to ``seek bold reductions in tactical weapons,'' aka the B61, in Europe. My friends on the other side of the aisle claim they want to reduce the deficit. I agree, but if we are actually going to reduce spending, everything has to be on the table, including defense. This amendment is a tiny, thoughtful cut to an outsized nuclear budget for weapons that do little to keep us safe. I hope my colleagues will join me in cutting funds not requested by the Department of Energy for nuclear upgrades not needed. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, entire neighborhoods in my city of Chicago are being torn apart by violence. Last week, from Wednesday evening through Sunday evening, more than 70 people were shot in Chicago, 11 of whom died. Last year, over 500 people were murdered in my city. Of these murders, 80 percent were gang related, and nearly 90 percent were at the hands of a gun. The numbers speak for themselves. The city of Chicago is facing an epidemic of violence and the reasons behind it are clear. There are many ideas to solve this problem. One--rounding up 18,000 members of the Gangster Disciples--is simply not legally or financially feasible. What is feasible and a significant way to stop gun violence in my city is to stop the flow of illegal guns into Chicago. One reason the violence is at record levels is because gang members have such easy access to illegal guns. It's time for the Federal Government to step in and do something about it. Despite the city's tough gun laws, Chicago cops are recovering illegal guns at nine times the rate of their counterparts in New York City. That's nearly three times the number of weapons in a city one- third the size. These outrageous numbers call for nothing short of a Federal response. We need a renewed effort at the Federal level to prosecute gun traffickers who put illegal weapons in the hands of gang members. We need to give our law enforcement the tools they need to put these guys away. Last year, Chicago ranked last among Federal jurisdictions and Federal gun prosecutions. This is simply unacceptable. Gun traffickers should know that if you traffic illegal weapons in the city of Chicago, you will be spending a long time in a Federal penitentiary. We can no longer let these criminals be charged with mere paperwork violations. I welcome the nomination of Zachary Fardon as Chicago's new Federal prosecutor and urge him to prosecute more of these cases in Federal court. But to try more gun traffickers in Federal court, we need to give law enforcement the tools and funding they need to do so. That means finally passing a Federal law making gun trafficking illegal, with stiffer penalties for those who violate the law; that means increasing funding for Federal COPS grants to put more police on our streets instead of ignoring municipalities across the country that have been forced to cut their public safety budgets in these difficult economic times; and that means finally giving law enforcement the proper tools to go after corrupt gun dealers. One percent of gun dealers are responsible for half the guns used in crimes in this country; yet current law foolishly limits things like inventory inspections. If law-abiding dealers reported inventories, the ATF would be much more effective in identifying lost and stolen weapons and combating corrupt gun dealers. That's why I introduced the TRACE Act this Congress, which would allow the ATF to require dealers to perform inventory checks and to report lost and stolen guns. Mr. Speaker, people are being gunned down in my city every day. And while we continue to spend billions of dollars on nuclear weapons, tanks, and wars overseas, we're ignoring the gang war that is happening here at home. It's time for the Federal Government to step up to the challenge by stopping gun violence where it starts.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, after 23 NHL Playoff games, 10 overtimes, and 64 goals, the Chicago Blackhawks have won their second Stanley Cup in the last 4 years. Congratulations to the greatest team in hockey on being the 2013 Stanley Cup Champions. The impressive regular season began with a record-breaking streak of 24 straight games with a point earned, and it ended with a Presidents' Trophy for the most points in a regular season. This success set the stage for an outstanding playoff run, a promise of things to come. The Hawks made good on that promise this week in one of the most incredible and improbable Stanley Cup Final games in NHL history. Having already tamed the Minnesota Wild, taken down our archrival, the Detroit Red Wings, and dethroned the Los Angeles Kings, the Blackhawks grinded through the finals to one of the craziest and most exciting Stanley Cup wins ever witnessed. To say this championship winning game was a nail-biter would be an understatement. The Blackhawks came from behind twice to overcome an amazing effort by the Boston Bruins, scoring two goals just 17 seconds apart in the final minute and a half of the game. Unbelievable goals scored by Bryan Bickell and Dave Bolland ensured their names will be inscribed forever in Blackhawk history books as well as on Lord Stanley's Cup. With outstanding efforts by Captain Jonathan Toews; Conn Smythe winner, Buffalo native, Patrick Kane; the best defenseman in hockey, Duncan Keith; and, of course, the best goalie in the playoffs, Corey Crawford, the entire team made good on a promise that this Original Six team is a true legend to be reckoned with. As I have mentioned before, hockey never left Chicago, but Rocky Wirtz brought it back. The owner of the Blackhawks has once again made our city proud. The entire organization is the classiest in sports, the model in hockey. Led by John McDonough, Jay Blunk, Stan Bowman, and Coach Joel Quenneville, they have enshrined Chicago as a hockey town for the 21st century. But the Blackhawks don't just unify our city, they also are committed to serving the community and making it better. Their StreetHawks program has worked to promote fitness and leadership skills to local youth through street hockey initiatives and community skating facilities. Through the NHL's Hockey is for Everyone program, I've had the pleasure of working with the Hawks to expand hockey access to at-risk and LGBT youth; because no matter what your background, every child should have the opportunity to play the greatest sport in the world. The Blackhawks have also been strong supporters of America's veterans and wounded warriors. Just this year, I joined the Hawks and the USA Warriors veterans team for an outdoor hockey game at Soldier Field. The Hawks gave these vets--most of whom are Purple Heart recipients--a once-in-a-lifetime experience they will never forget. And I suppose this is what the Hawks do best, provide their fans-- fans in Chicago and around the world--with memories they will never forget. I look forward to the new memories yet to be made during future Stanley Cup victories, games with Blackhawk players who are just kids right now with the memory of shots heard around the hockey world ringing through their heads. Mr. Speaker, hockey is a special sport that brings people together, improves our communities, and, most importantly, makes people dream the impossible and do the improbable. The entire world saw that this week thanks to the 2013 Stanley Cup Champion Chicago Blackhawks. Go Hawks. And as always, my kind of town, Chicago is.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1797 because we have been here before. Not less than a year ago, this body took up a very similar measure, and it failed. I hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting this attempt. We cannot ban abortions after 20 weeks, first, because it's unconstitutional, and, second, because we cannot know the individual situation of every woman. What if a woman gets cancer during her pregnancy? What if she gets pre-eclampsia, which could cause seizures and kidney damage? What if a woman's fetus is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality, making it unable to survive pregnancy or delivery? Women and their families are often faced with impossibly difficult decisions, but they are their decisions to make, not ours. Please vote ``no'' on this thoughtless bill.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my reintroduction of the State Ethics Law Protection Act. At a time when indictments and allegations of ethics violations of our elected leaders have become all too common, now more than ever we must use every tool at our disposal to fight corruption. Unfortunately, the Federal Government is currently preventing numerous States from using one of the most important tools we have to fight cronyism, corruption, and waste. My home State of Illinois, which is no stranger to these issues, along with several other States around the country, has taken a stand against corruption by passing laws to eliminate shady pay-to-play contracting. Pay-to-play politics is the practice of trading campaign contributions for lucrative government contracts. Pay-to-play practices erode the integrity of our public works projects and allow individuals to profit at the expense of American taxpayers. It is the most common example of government corruption. Fortunately, it is also one of the easiest to solve. Anti-pay-to-play laws are designed to ensure that the competitive bidding process for government contracts is open and fair, not rigged or otherwise biased by lining the campaign pockets of those responsible for awarding the contracts. Amazingly, a loophole created in a previous administration in the Federal Highway Administration's contracting requirements is making it difficult, if not impossible, for States to implement these anticorruption laws. The Federal Government has threatened to cut off highway funds to any State that passes an anti-pay-to-play law. The Highway Administration's competitive bidding requirements have been interpreted to mean that States can't weed out corrupt contractors. Clearly, this was not the intent of Congress when it passed these requirements. That is why I'm reintroducing the State Ethics Law Protection Act. This important measure simply amends the Federal Highway Administration's contracting requirements to allow States to pass these important laws. It ensures States that do pass anticorruption laws do not face financial penalties for doing so. It is time for us to make it clear that Congress supports the right of States to fight corruption as they see fit. States have the right to ensure their contracting conforms to the highest ethical standards and offers the best value to taxpayers. It is not the Federal Highway Administration's place to second-guess a State on how to best ethically award contracts. States like Connecticut, New Jersey, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky have all passed laws like Illinois to root out this kind of blatant corruption. These States should be applauded, not punished, for doing the right thing. By amending the Federal Highway Administration's contracting requirements, we can ensure that States have every tool at their disposal to encourage transparency and accountability. Our States have shown they are ready to reform. It is now our duty to ensure they have the ability to implement these reforms. I am often asked what the true cost of corruption is. I will tell you, in my view, coming from Illinois, it is the loss of the public's trust. We cannot lead without this trust. And at this critical juncture, we must do all we can to restore trust and inspire the confidence of people across this country.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 211, I inadvertently voted ``aye'' when I intended to vote ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 2217, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. The addition of the Amendment to H.R. 2217 offered by Mr. King altered the true intent of the bill. Mr. King's Amendment would prohibit the use of prosecutorial discretion by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, preventing Immigration and Customs Enforcement from focusing its limited enforcement resources on those who pose a real threat to public safety and national security.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important amendment, the Deutch-Foster amendment. First of all, this is the right thing to do, but to bring the conversation back to what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle pivot to in almost every policy discussion we have in this body--cutting spending. In a budget age where many in this body celebrate the draconian and harmful cuts of the sequester, it seems we've come to accept as the norm indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts that in many cases fall on the backs of the most vulnerable among us. Cutting spending in this Congress no longer equates to targeted cuts to inefficient or duplicative government programs to root out waste. Cutting spending in this budget climate is simply about the bottom line. But it doesn't have to be that way. This amendment is the perfect example of how we can cut spending in a smart and efficient way while defending those most vulnerable. By ending the arbitrary 34,000-bed mandate for immigration detention, we can cut spending and do the right thing. How's this for a bottom line: alternatives to immigration detention save money. We're spending more than $5 million a day to detain immigrants, 45 percent of which have no criminal record, according to Human Rights Watch. That equates to roughly $164 per day per detainee for detention and roughly $2 billion per year. On the other hand, alternatives to detention only cost between 30 cents and $14 per day per detainee, and they have proven to be safe and effective. According to Julie Myers Wood, who ran ICE under President Bush, 96 percent of individuals enrolled in alternatives to detention show up for their final hearing and 84 percent comply with removal orders. So what's stopping us from putting in place these effective, cost- saving policies? Another harmful appropriations policy rider, mandating a daily detention level of 34,000 immigrants. In no other law enforcement context do we impose such a ridiculous quota. You wouldn't tell a county jail or a State prison that you have to keep ``X'' number of prisoners in that facility. Mandating such a high level of detention makes absolutely no sense. By doing so, ICE is effectively prohibited from making decisions about detention based on enforcement policies, efficiency, and need. All-too-often in this body, we look for someone else to blame. But in this case, we have no one to blame for this wasteful policy but ourselves. We have the power to change a policy that does nothing but waste the taxpayers' money and cause undue hardship to immigrant families across the country. I urge my colleagues to vote for increased efficiency and compassion, and urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to come together and improve our broken, misguided, and convoluted tax system. The time is right for tax reform. We currently spend $1 trillion through the Tax Code each year, all of which is off budget, meaning it is not scrutinized each year by appropriators. Once a tax break is written into the Tax Code, it usually remains, unlike discretionary programs which are reexamined for their necessity each year. To put this in perspective, $1 trillion would be the single largest government spending program--larger than the Pentagon's budget, larger than Social Security, and larger than Medicare or Medicaid. As we desperately search for ways to reduce the deficit, we are making deep and painful cuts to discretionary spending. All the while, we are spending more than $1 trillion through the Tax Code with little oversight. I have introduced a bipartisan bill with Congressman Renacci, which would bring greater transparency and oversight to such expenditures. But in addition to greater oversight, we also need reform. While many of these tax expenditures incentivize worthwhile behavior, such as homeownership and increased savings and investment, there are others, such as the yacht interest deduction, which clearly need to be reconsidered. We are cutting the funding for the National Institutes of Health, Head Start, and Meals on Wheels, while subsidizing yachts. Let's put this into perspective. If one of my constituents takes out a loan to buy a car to get to work or take the kids to school, the interest on that loan is not tax deductible; but if they were to go out and buy a yacht, the interest on that loan would be tax deductible. Clearly, it's time to reexamine our Tax Code and get our priorities in order. I have a bill that would end this tax break for yachts. But rather than tackling these tax breaks individually, we need a wholesale rewrite of the Tax Code. Our Tax Code is the product of years of small tweaks and layers of changes. We need to step back and ask ourselves: If we were to start over and rewrite the Tax Code today, what would it look like? With such limited resources, what do we need? What behavior should we be incentivizing? Due in part to years of additions and changes, our current Tax Code is deeply recessive. According to a report released last week by the Congressional Budget Office, the richest 20 percent of households in America receive over 50 percent of the tax breaks. The top 1 percent benefited the most, receiving approximately 17 percent of all funds flowing from tax breaks. It's time for a reexamination of our Tax Code: Who benefits from it? How much do we spend? What are our priorities? Not only is it time for reform because of our fiscal situation; but at a time of frequent partisan gridlock, tax reform is one area where the two sides seem to agree. Members from both sides of the aisle have said tax reform is essential. I commend Chairman Camp and his counterpart in the Senate, Chairman Baucus, for their efforts to reform our Tax Code. I hope they will continue their bipartisan work and give the two Houses a package of reforms we can live with. I have no illusion this will be simple or that everyone will like everything in the package, but that's the beauty of democracy--we don't have to agree on everything, but everyone's voice has to be heard. We have to compromise, and in the end, we vote. I hope we get to vote on a tax reform package that is big, bipartisan and balanced--and soon-- because reforming our Tax Code will save us billions, lower tax rates, and help reduce the deficit. As we sit down to address our fiscal woes, everything has to be on the table, including the trillion dollars we spend each year on tax expenditures.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Wellington-Oakdale Old Glory Marching Society's Annual Memorial Day Parade, a patriotic tradition in Chicago's Lakeview neighborhood. This vibrant Chicago institution invites marchers of all ages to participate in Lakeview's only ``do-it-yourself'' parade, where everybody marches and nobody watches. In 1963, Chicago resident Al Weisman began this annual tradition along with his son, Tony, and a half dozen friends marching around the block with an American flag. Today, the WOOGMS parade is led by Tony Weisman and regularly attracts more than 1,000 marchers. It is a wonderful way Chicagoans celebrate freedom and remember those who have served our country. The WOOGMS parade's emphasis on inclusion and participation sets this wonderful event apart. Guided by Al Weisman's belief that children would rather participate in a parade than simply watch, the parade encourages Chicagoans of all ages to join in the parade and march; spectators are discouraged from sitting down and encouraged to participate. These annual parades attract parents, children and grandparents who are walking or riding strollers, bikes and wheelchairs down the parade route. Accompanied by the Jesse White Drum Corps, participants march towards St. Joseph's Hospital where they are greeted by welcoming volunteers. As a longtime Lakeview resident, I've had the privilege of joining the WOOGMS parade since 1983. As the event has grown, so have the participants. It's been heartening to see the children who marched 30 years ago come back to join the WOOGMS parade with children of their own. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in recognizing the WOOGMS parade as one of Chicago's most unique events. Let us look forward to another 50 years of continued success for this patriotic tradition.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today on National Teacher Appreciation Day with an oft-forgotten remedy to our economic downturn: investments in early childhood education. Successful nations invest in three things: infrastructure, research, and education. To compete in the global market, we need to have the most highly skilled workforce in the world. And to develop that workforce, we have to start at the beginning with early childhood education. Research from Stanford shows that rich students perform better than middle- and low-income students. Quite simply, they enter kindergarten more prepared thanks to high quality preschool. Nobel Laureate economist James Heckman found a 7 to 10 percent annual return on investment in effective preschool. Every child deserves a chance to succeed in school and throughout their lives. Providing early childhood education can give them that chance, and the entire Nation will be better off for it.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Peter N. Silvestri, retiring President of the Village of Elmwood Park and current 9th District Cook County Commissioner. Mr. Silvestri has served Elmwood Park for twenty-four years as Village president and chose not to seek reelection this year in order to focus his complete attention on his position of Cook County Commissioner. Mr. Silvestri has lived in Elmwood Park since 1971, and is a graduate of Elmwood Park High School. He attended DePaul University for undergraduate studies, as well as for his law degree. In 1977, at the age of twenty, Silvestri became the youngest person in Illinois elected to a local school board. He served on Elmwood Park's school board for two years, and was president of the board when he left to serve the Village in other offices. Following Mr. Silvestri's exit from the school board, he served on the Zoning Board, Plan Commission, Civic Foundation, and as Village Trustee before his election to Village President. Under the leadership of Silvestri, the Village of Elmwood Park has been able to prosper and continue to pursue the village's goal of being a great place to raise a family and start a business. Mr. Silvestri oversaw numerous beautification projects in the Village, as well as efforts to modernize the police, fire, and public works departments. Silvestri also holds a good financial track record with the Village, which is seen through the Village's high bond rating, minimal debt and a reduced tax levy coming next year. Mr. Silvestri leaves the office of Village President in the wake of numerous accomplishments. Recently, the Village opened a new library, and the aquatic center and the new Centennial Park are scheduled to be opened this spring. Other accomplishments while in office include an expanded recreation center, the creation of Mills, Torpe and Central Parks and an expanded Bambi Park. Silvestri has overseen the development of numerous projects within the Village of Elmwood Park which have contributed greatly to the reputation of Elmwood Park as a great place to live and raise a family. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing the years of dedication and public service Peter N. Silvestri has contributed to the Village of Elmwood Park. Mr. Silvestri has helped the Village prosper through the changing social and economic climate of recent decades, and he will surely be missed as the Village's president. I want to thank Mr. Silvestri for his years of service to the Village of Elmwood Park, and I look forward to his continued service as Cook County Commissioner.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because last week my district experienced its second ``storm of the century'' in the last 3 years, its third since 2008. More than 7 inches of rain turned the streets of Hinsdale, Elmhurst, Franklin Park, and Albany Park into rivers. Clearly, we need to revisit our definition of the 100-year storm; because, while some may doubt the reality of climate change, it is a fact that stronger, more destructive storms are pounding our region with distressing regularity and resulting in huge costs. While some don't believe in climate change, I hope they believe in funding flood control. We owe it to our constituents. I spent most of this past weekend touring the flooded streets and basements throughout my district. Everywhere I went, I encountered residents who had lost their homes, their belongings, and their peace of mind. The residents I talked to wanted to know two things: What was their government going to do to help, and why was this happening again so soon after the horrific flooding of 2010? I told people that my office would do everything it could to bring Federal disaster relief to their homes and businesses; but, unfortunately, Federal help for big States can be an uphill fight. Aid is based, in part, on a population-based formula that penalizes larger States like Illinois. Big States have to suffer more damage before meeting the aid threshold. This process of rewarding aid is unfair, and we need to change it. I raised this concern last summer with my colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I was pleased to see language in Superstorm Sandy legislation requiring FEMA to review its processes in rewarding disaster aid. But reviews and bill language are of little immediate consolation to people who have lost their homes or businesses. With 44 counties declared a disaster area after last week's flood, we don't need another study. The people of my district and others across the State need our help. FEMA needs to act--and act without delay--to get Illinois back on its feet. Every town in my district has projects that will help lessen the impact of the next storm. Storm sewer improvements, berms, swales, planting more wetlands, permeable pavers, detention ponds, and the Deep Tunnel Project can lessen or even prevent disaster. We need to find the funds for these local projects that will avert the next flood and ultimately save millions in tax dollars in damages. For the Chicago area, that means demanding the $35 million per year in Federal funding that is needed to complete the McCook and Thornton reservoirs. These reservoirs are part of a larger flood mitigation plan put in place over 20 years ago by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Federal Government is now holding up their completion because of budget issues. Local budgets are just a start, though. We also need to address the question of why 100-year storms are recurring so often. Climate change is here, and we must address it now. With a sensible energy policy, development of alternative energy sources, and commonsense conservation, we can begin to confront one of the great challenges of our time. If we don't, then the storms of last week in the Midwest and last fall on the east coast will be the new normal, and that's a normal none of us can afford.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, the founder of Earth Day, Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, was asked in 2005, just before his death at the age of 89, if Earth Day should be celebrated. ``Our work is not finished,'' he replied. ``There's a lot more that needs to be done.'' As we enter wildfire season, watershed infrastructure that would mitigate future contamination of local rivers and reservoirs is still being rebuilt from last season, and funding for rebuilding is only now being allocated, having been delayed under sequestration, affecting lives and homes. We've yet to craft an agenda that talks of a multiyear transportation plan or climate change. And, of course, the green legislator at heart would love to see tools like the Antiquities Act as a job-creating mechanism rather than spending time on the floor fighting against rolling back NEPA as we're doing this week with H.R. 678, unnecessarily, at the expense of supporting hydropower, as we should. No, our work is not finished. There's a lot more to be done.