Mike Quigley

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the World War II and Korean War veterans who traveled to Washington, D.C. on July 13, 2016 with Honor Flight Chicago, a program that provides World War II and Korean War veterans the opportunity to visit their memorials on The National Mall in Washington, D.C. These memorials were built to honor their courage and service to their country. The American Veteran is one of our greatest treasures. The Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen who traveled here on July 13th answered our nation's call to service during one of its greatest times of need. From the European Campaign to the Pacific Asian Theatre to the African Theatre, these brave Americans risked life and limb, gave service and sacrificed much, all while embodying what it is to be a hero. We owe them more gratitude than can ever be expressed. I welcome these brave veterans to Washington and to their memorials. I am proud to submit the names of these men and women for all to see, hear, and recognize, and I call on my colleagues to rise and join me in expressing gratitude. Lido A. Andreoni, Martin J. Baureis, Eugene J. Beausoleil, Joseph A. Brochman, William J. Brown, Howard L. Bruning, Carmen L. Caputo, Frank A. Carbonaro, LeRoy L. Carlson, Louis A. Champa, Gerald Connerty, Jeremiah Coughlin, Walter J. Crane, Domenico D'Alessandro, Fred Nelson Day, Leonard Henry DeMichele, Raymond Devlin, Dominic L. Disandro, Christo M. Dragatsis, George J. Drobney, Russell W. Duller, August J. Edelmann, Arthur R. Edelstein, Charles Nathan Elias, Edward E. Fioretti, Frank Flores, Donald L. Forrest, Robert L. Foster, Earl S. Fowlkes, Ernest G. Frantz, Marvin G. Freeman, Harry Freudenheim, Nick Gallo, Donavon D. Gibson, James E. Gryczka, Jerome Lewis Handler, Leonard M. Hansen, Richard Harwood, Clarence R. Hutchison, Robert W. Hynes, Ralph J. Imbrogno, George H. Kallas, Joseph G. Kaplan, Allan L. Kaplan, James R. Keith, Roger J. King, Gerald S. Kramer, Richard Krska, George L. Kucharchuk, Eugene M. Kukla, Ralph M. Lacy, John R. Lahaie, George J. Lamoureux, Myrtle L. Larson, James R. Lass, Robert R. Lovati, Francis H. Lucht, Fred J. Mancari, Charles E. Manis, Francisco Matos, Alfred J. McAndrew, Robert L. Menclewicz, James A. Mervin, Elwood H. Michel, Neil P. Moore, Frederick J. Mundt, Glen E. Myers, James L. O'Brien, Sheldon R. Olsen Jr., Donald P. O'Neil, Lester D. Pauls, Donald P. Perille, Earl N. Pilgrim, Steve J. Pizzello, Walter R. Pollak, William D. Powell, Richard R. Pucin, Herbert G. Richards, Frederick J. Richter, Jonathan N. Rivers, Philip E. Robinson, Stanley D. Russell Jr., Leno Santacaterina, George Martin Schallmo Jr., Joseph Schmieder, Delbert L. Schoenbeck, Bernard H. Shedor, David S. Silverman, Robert L. Sinclair, Sheldon Sonheim, Thomas J. Stacks, Walter E. Stankiewicz, Lawrence J. Steskal, Frederick A. Stevens, Morton Stillman, Donald Stillman, Robert R. Straits, Robert J. Sutphen, George R. Thompson, William G. Vejvoda, Ronald E. Vezina, Gerald L. Wien, George A. Wilkins, William C. Witte, George A. Wolters, Robert O. Yahn, Richard K. Yohnka.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to climate change, the data is in and the science clear: Our world is shifting. Sea levels are rising. Glaciers are shrinking. Oceans are becoming more acidic. What is more? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is 95 percent certain that humans are causing the current climate change trend. To sit here and deny the science simply because it inconveniences us does nothing but cause greater harm for our planet and future generations. Each day that passes without action on climate change is another day we are wreaking havoc on our world. I think President Obama said it best when he stated: ``If anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You'll be pretty lonely, because you'll be debating our military, most of America's business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it's a problem and intend to solve it.'' It is hard to believe that some of my colleagues are so determined to deny climate science that they are willing to sacrifice the health and safety of Americans. Nowhere is the sacrifice more evident than in our waterways. We use water for everything, from drinking and bathing to growing crops, shipping goods, generating electricity, and recreation. But climate change is creating profound changes to this precious commodity, threatening water availability, access, and quality. Many areas of the United States, especially in the West, currently face devastating water supply issues. The amount of water available in these areas is already limited, and our demand will continue to rise as the population grows. One of the greatest examples of this is the Colorado River system, a major source of water supply for the Southwest. In recent decades, water flow through this important river system has been lighter than expected given annual rain and snowfall rates. Not surprisingly, studies show that rising temperatures and climate change are the cause of this decreased water flow. As greenhouse gas pollution continues to pile up, it traps more heat, continually raising global temperatures, and parches the Colorado River watershed. Researchers expect that for every degree of Celsius of global warming, the amount of water that gets evaporated and sucked up by plants from the Colorado River could increase 2 or 3 percent. With 4.5 million acres of farmland irrigated using the Colorado River water and with nearly 40 million residents depending on it, the incremental losses that are predicted will have a devastating impact. As the West continues to experience less rain and an increase in the severity and length of droughts, greater impacts on drinking water supplies are projected. Unfortunately, it is not just the western U.S. that is in danger. In my own region, the Great Lakes are under threat as they are warming at rates faster than the world's oceans. It is expected that the Great Lakes region will grow warmer and probably dryer during the 21st century, with temperatures in the region warming anywhere from 5 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit. The impact climate change has on the five lakes will have serious implications for aquatic life, as well as high economic costs for our communities. Several different climate models for the Great Lakes region all predict that lake levels will decline over the next century. Within another 30 years, Lake Superior may be mostly ice free in a typical winter and has already experienced increased water temperatures. Lake Erie water levels, already below average, could drop 4 to 5 feet by the end of this century, significantly altering shoreline habitat. We are at the tipping point, and instead of addressing the root of the issue, climate change, my colleagues continue to deny the science. Our waterways are national treasures. They serve as the backbone for our health, economy, ecosystems, and recreation. We cannot simply stand by while the course of the world is altered. The science is clear, the data is pointing us in one direction: Now is the time to act on climate change. We are not given a planet with unlimited resources. It is our job to protect our waters and the people that rely on them, and that begins with finding real solutions to our climate crisis.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. QUIGLEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member.

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

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

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Air Force plans to acquire 1,000 next-generation air-launched cruise missiles, otherwise known as the long-range standoff weapon. This is double the size of the existing nuclear-armed cruise missile arsenal. However, many experts have already told us there is no need for nuclear-armed cruise missiles. We already have the most advanced bomber ever created in our arsenal, the B-2 Stealth bomber, and the Air Force will be acquiring new B-21 Stealth bombers. These bombers are capable of penetrating enemy airspace and dropping a nuclear bomb directly above a target, making nuclear-armed cruise missiles redundant. If we decide we want to shoot nuclear missiles from thousands of miles away, we still have very expensive submarines and very expensive ICBMs capable of doing just that. Instead of investing more dollars into our outdated and oversized nuclear arsenal, we must make smart investments on other priorities that actually keep us safe, or on reducing our unsustainable debt and deficits. Yet, last year's budget doubled down and accelerated production of the missile by 2 years to 2025. The accelerated procurement schedule will cost taxpayers an additional $75.8 million more in 2017 than originally planned in the fiscal year 2015 acquisition schedule, but that makes little sense when there is so much uncertainty about whether this missile is affordable or even necessary. That is why my amendment will put $75.8 million towards deficit reduction by placing funding for the long-range standoff weapon back on its 2015 acquisition schedule. There is no need to rush development when as little as 2 years ago the Air Force had requested a delay in procurement to pay for higher priorities before changing its mind a year later. On top of that, the existing air-launched cruise missile and warhead isn't being phased out until the 2030s. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, in the brief time I have, this doesn't gut the program. It brings it back to its 2015 acquisition schedule. Folks, we have to prioritize. We can't have three redundancies when we have cut homeland security money by 50 percent in the last 5 years. After Orlando, we should learn to reprioritize what really keeps Americans safe. I encourage a ``yes'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time I have left?

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the World War II and Korean War veterans who traveled to Washington, D.C. on June 8, 2016 with Honor Flight Chicago, a program that provides World War II and Korean War veterans the opportunity to visit their memorials on The National Mall in Washington, D.C. These memorials were built to honor their courage and service to their country. The American Veteran is one of our greatest treasures. The Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen who traveled here on June 8th answered our nation's call to service during one of its greatest times of need. From the European Campaign to the Pacific Asian Theater to the African Theater, these brave Americans risked life and limb, gave service and sacrificed much, all while embodying what it is to be a hero. We owe them more gratitude than can ever be expressed. I welcome these brave veterans to Washington and to their memorials. I am proud to submit the names of these men and women for all to see, hear, and recognize, and I call on my colleagues to rise and join me in expressing gratitude. Harold C. Aichholzer, Donald G. Alpers, Sidney R. Anderson, George D. Aurand, O. Robert Baccega, Daniel T. Barker Sr., Richard W. Bernardini, Claude T. Bjork, Julien F. Bloom, Paul Bobolia, Anthony F. Boecker, Robert George Bollman, Joseph E. Borowiak, Richard H. Burns, Thomas Calhoun, Robert G. Callaghan, Libero F. Calzavara, Paul T. Carrano, Charles A. Clark, Fred P. Claussen, John Considine, Donald E. Cramer, Robert E. Cutts, Allan D. Danielson, Charles Joseph Doherty, Robert L. Drennen, William N. Drish, Sr., Milton L. Duehr, Richard Eldorado, Ronald K. Erickson, Jerry R. Forst, Jr., William F. Galambos, Robert M. Gerhold, William Gilkey, Lawrence L. Gurtowski, James Guzzaldo, Donald E. Hahn, Roy L. Halvorsen, Raymond A. Handley, Robert P. Havlik, Albert W. Hellwig, Frank J. Hochman, Robert J. Horn, George E. Jaffke, (Oury L. Johnson, Jr., Thomas L. Kelliher, James M. Kirk, John A. Kotan, Jr., Anthony J. Kowalczyk, Louis F. Kueltzo, Jr., Donald Larsen, Ruel F. Lehman, Jr., Stuart Letchinger, Marvin Daniel Levy, Robert T. Lewandowski, Burton A. Lewis, John H. Lichter, Ronald F. Lotz, Joseph B. Lyznicki, Robert Magnuson, Frank Mangels, Raymond J. Manista, Sherwin Marks, Jon R. Marshall, Melvin Mathias, Lloyd A. McCarthy, William P. Merci, Lloyd T. Millard, Joseph S. Musick, Richard S. Nadder, Michael J. Nannini, Leo J. Napolitano, George J. Nastav, Jack J. Nikoleit, Carl H. Nordeen, Joseph F. Pappalardo, Harry O. Parker, Roger L. Payne, Donald E. Pechous, Francis J. Pendergast, William L. Pierce, Eugene C. Piltaver, Waldo M. Pool, Robert P. Prible, John A. Quick, Robert Rodriguez, John J. Rogers, Norman J. Sachman, Paul Sanders, Robert W. Schaerer, Charles William Shepherd, Raymond Shlemon, Serio J. Siena, Robert Sinclair, Richard V. Skagen, Frank Slay, Richard J. Slomczynski, James Demetrios Sotirakos, John M. Spaulding, Francis D. Stammer, George R. Tamminga, William N. Tauber, Jack Tomaselli, Robert E. Turk, Robert J. Weinmeier, Michael Werner, Charles A. White, Jr., Melvin Williams, Jerome A. Wirkus, Francis A. Wroblewski, John C. Yoder.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, as the world hurdles toward an era where climate change impacts our everyday life, we must recognize the consequences of our inaction. Secretary Hagel said it best when he stated: ``Climate change is a global problem. Its impacts do not respect national borders.'' Despite this, we continue to live in a bubble of denial. It is abundantly clear that climate change is rapidly altering the world around us, contributing to higher temperatures, changing seasonal patterns, and driving the loss of species and habitats. The scientific evidence demonstrating the realities of climate change is vast and ever-growing. Just this week, NASA reported that April 2016 was the warmest April ever recorded. In fact, NASA said there is a ``99 percent chance that 2016 will be the hottest year ever recorded.'' If this proves to be true, 2016 will beat our previous record holder, 2015. And 2015 beat our previous record holder, 2014. Sensing a trend here? Earth's changing temperature does not just threaten the existence of plants and animals: climate change also affects our national security at home and abroad. As a Member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am briefed weekly on our most pressing and urgent threats, and it is abundantly clear that climate change is one of those threats. Climate change is what we consider a threat multiplier, meaning it is exacerbating many of the challenges we confront around the world today, and will produce new challenges for us in the future. As a global power with strategic interests around the world, climate change is immensely important to us because of the impact it has on the regional stability of our allies. Internationally, climate change is already causing humanitarian disasters and resource scarcity that accelerates instability, contributes to political violence, and undermines weak governments. Examples of these repercussions are being seen around the world today. Climate change-induced drought in the Middle East and Africa is leading to conflicts over food and water, escalating longstanding regional and ethnic tensions into violent clashes. Rising sea levels are putting people and food supplies in vulnerable coastal regions at risk, threatening to displace countless people. The increasing scarcity of resources in regions across the globe is stressing governments that are trying to provide basic needs for their citizens. In already volatile regions of the world, these are highly dangerous conditions that can enable terrorist activity and exacerbate refugee crises. As these threats around the world continue to multiply due to climate change, the U.S. is forced to extend our limited resources in humanitarian aid and military security to more locations in an effort to keep the peace, protect our interests and allies, and avoid major conflicts. It is not just the wonky scientists and policymakers that are sounding the alarm. The Department of Defense declared that the threat of climate change will affect the Pentagon's ability to defend the Nation and poses immediate risk to U.S. national security. The CIA and the Department of State have already identified climate change as a national security challenge, yet Congress continues to refuse to act on this issue. We are already experiencing the impacts of climate change from superstorms in the U.S. to devastating droughts in the Middle East. As climate change continues to strain economies and societies across the world, it will only create additional resource burdens and impact the way our military executes its missions, forcing our military to spend more on crisis prevention, humanitarian assistance, and government stabilization. This is why we have to act now. It is time for my colleagues to realize that the debate is over and that now is the time to deal with the very real consequences of climate change. As President Obama said: ``To make collective decisions on behalf of a common good, we have to use our heads. We have to agree that facts and evidence matter. And we got to hold our leaders and ourselves accountable . . . '' While we can't reverse climate change, we can work with our partners around the world to slow the process, assist in adaptation, and protect our national security interests. The health and security of future generations depends on our actions today.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize the founding of the Ukrainian National Museum in 1952 by three displaced scholars, Olexa Hankewych, Julian Kamenetsky, and Orest Horodysky. The Ukrainian National Museum is dedicated to the collection of documents, presentation and exhibition of artifacts sharing Ukrainian culture and heritage. Its collection consists of more than 100,000 museum archives related to the history and legacy of Ukraine and Chicago's Ukrainian community, and 10,000 artifacts related to traditional folk and fine arts. Today, the Ukrainian National Museum is highlighted as one of the finest achievements of the Ukrainian American community in the U.S. It features an important part of Chicago's history and is a respected institution for Ukrainian Americans throughout the United States. The Ukrainian National Museum occupies a vital place in the cultural world of the Ukrainian Diaspora in America. It is visited and appreciated by people of many ethnic backgrounds coming from all over the world. A main reason the Ukrainian National Museum is such an impressive institution is due to the hard work of many devoted individuals, one of whom is Jaroslaw J. Hankewych, son of one of UNM's founders, Olexa Hankewych. Mr. Jaroslaw J. Hankewych served on the Museum Executive Board for over 40 years, and from 2000 to 2014, served as President of the Ukrainian National Museum. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and celebrating Jaroslaw Hankewych's work and accomplishments, and also the many contributions of the Ukrainian American community.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to join the chorus in thanking the staff on both sides of the aisle, and the ranking member and the chairman for their extraordinary work in support of the Intelligence Authorization Act. Indeed, it is something of a model for how we can work on a bipartisan basis. This year's Intelligence Authorization Act provides funding and oversight to vital collection and analysis programs. It also provides guidance of how best to support and leverage our partners and allies, which is critical in the world of shrinking budgets and ever-increasing threats. Specifically, I am pleased that the IAA continues to support security services in Ukraine. I have long advocated for U.S. assistance to Ukraine given the strategic relationship and shared value between our two countries. Russia remains a significant threat to its neighbors and to the U.S. Bolstering our partners in Eastern Europe is one key way to check Russia's increasing adventurism. Looking ahead, we must stay focused on this threat and continue to focus on our national security programs at home. We cannot simply allow ourselves to get lulled into a false sense of security simply because of lack of information about specific threats against soft targets like stadiums and airports. Since 9/11, we have made significant and important enhancements to U.S. intelligence capabilities, but that was 15 years ago. We must continuously reassess our risks and take appropriate steps to stop terrorist attacks before they occur.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, nearly 700,000 people in the United States today are living with a brain tumor. Sadly, over 16,000 of them will lose their battles this year alone. Many of them will be children, with brain tumors being the leading cause of death from cancer for those who are under 14. Unfortunately, the treatment and removal of brain tumors presents significant challenges because of the brain's uniquely complex and fragile nature, due, in no small part, to there being more than 120 different types of tumors. While brain tumor research is supported by a number of private nonprofit research foundations and by institutes at the National Institutes of Health, there still remain daunting obstacles in the development of new treatments. Moreover, there are currently no strategies for screening or for the early detection of brain tumors. Despite the number of new people who are diagnosed with brain tumors every year and their devastating prognoses over the past 30 years, there have only been four FDA-approved drugs and one device to treat brain tumors. On top of that, the four approved drugs have provided only incremental improvements to patient survival, and mortality rates remain little changed over the past 30 years. It is clear that much more must be done. That is why I am proud to introduce a resolution designating this May as National Brain Tumor Awareness Month. Throughout the month, advocates around the country unite to educate the public about brain tumors and to advocate for policies that are vital to the discovery of a cure. Their efforts are crucial for shining a light on the difficulties that are associated with research on brain tumors and the opportunities for advancements in brain tumor research and treatment. I ask my colleagues to honor those who have lost their lives to a brain tumor and to please support this resolution so we can move one step closer to ending this devastating disease.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the World War II and Korean War veterans who traveled to Washington, D.C. on May 11, 2016 with Honor Flight Chicago, a program that provides World War II and Korean War veterans the opportunity to visit their memorials on The National Mall in Washington, D.C. These memorials were built to honor their courage and service to their country. The American Veteran is one of our greatest treasures. The Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen who traveled here on May 11th answered our nation's call to service during one of its greatest times of need. From the European Campaign to the Pacific Asian Theatre to the African Theater, these brave Americans risked life and limb, gave service and sacrificed much, all while embodying what it is to be a hero. We owe them more gratitude than can ever be expressed. I welcome these brave veterans to Washington and to their memorials. I am proud to submit the names of these men and women for all to see, hear, and recognize, and I call on my colleagues to rise and join me in expressing gratitude. Russell Joseph Allabastro, Gerald W. Arnold, Jack P. Astorino, Joseph F. Baron, Richard M. Bieniek, Robert J. Bierwirth, Raymond E. Bogard, William A. Bonacci, Howard C. Boone Jr., Frank Bossi, Marvin Brantman, Kazimierz Brenski, Lawrence E. Bromley, Rudolph Brunner, Joseph Chmielewski, Warren E. Cochran, Myron Cohen, Donald K. Collins, David E. Conrad, Donald L. Cothern, James M. Davis, Donald Clyde Day, Richard A. Dolejs, Peter R. Doyle, Richard L. Duchossois, Jacob L. Dvoratchek, Henry J. Dziekan, Robert W. Enloe, Richard A. Evans, Samuel D. Faircloth, Stanley L. Fazy, Robert J. Gecas, Michael Glienna, John O. Goad, Albert Godra, Donald J. Greenhill, James A. Grigsby, Davis H. Hall, James L. Hanrahan, William Harris, Walter L. Hayes, Phillip Healey, Charles P. Healy, Charles J. Henczel, James T. Hendron, Frank E. Hennig, Paul K. Heuberger, William F. Jones, William B. Kort, Joseph F. Kossman, Alfred C. Kotlarz, Paul E. Kroll, William G. Kruse, Eugene L. Lakinski, Fred Lane, George Lee Jr., Arthur J. Lietz, William P. Littell Jr., Ralph Markus, Allen C. McClellan, Ned L. McCray, Ewing Metoyer, Kenneth Warren Miller, Walter Miller, Wilbert P. Minnich, Louis Joseph Mirabelli, James Ward Montgomery, Ted E. Mueller, Donald R. Mundt, Richard J. Nicola, Ralph L. O'Brien, Hugh B. O'Hagan, Verner H. Ohst, Gerald Petersen, Paul P. Ponschke, Harold C. Prichard, Walter E. Rapata, Anthony Repeta, Gilbert Romo, Elliott D. Rosenberg, Sam Schechter, Arthur W. Schultz, Charles A. Sengstock Jr., Fred H. Siebert, Richard L. Smith, Robert L. Snyder, Lawrence J. Solarski, William Swale, David G. Tillinghast, Raymond Tinley, Wayne L. Uecker, Everett Van Kuiken, Edward F. Vascik, Raymond J. Vatch, Sidney J. Wallach, John H. Weir, Robert D. Wheeler, Quentin Wilmington, Eugene Wojciechowski, Carl M. Wolak, Harold D. Wolin, Walter J. Zielinski Jr., Richard P. Zukowski.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, last week I had the honor and privilege of traveling to Israel for the fourth time. Congressman Schiff and I joined the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem for Holocaust Remembrance Day. We watched six survivors, each representing 1 million innocent civilians killed, light the torch and share their stories of loss and survival. It was a powerful, moving, and emotional moment. I am not sure one can begin to understand the devastation of the Holocaust until you have stood in Dachau or Auschwitz or heard stories from survivors themselves that seem too horrific to be real. The United States' relationship with Israel is more important than ever. No matter what other threats we face, the United States and Israel must remain the closest of friends and continue to work together to ensure the security of our trusted ally.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Reverend Stan Sloan, the longest-serving CEO in the history of Chicago House and honor his service to the Chicago LGBTQ community. Rev. Sloan joined Chicago House in 2000 and in his 16 years of dedication and hard work, has quadrupled the amount of services offered at the agency. Reverend Sloan led the effort to establish the Midwest's first HIV/AIDS Employment Initiative and developed a city-wide Center for Disease Control Prevention Program. In addition, Rev. Sloan and Chicago House have opened the nation's first and most comprehensive center for Transgender services--including housing, employment, medical, and legal components at the Translife Center on Chicago's northside. Last year, Rev. Sloan came to DC and led a Congressional Briefing entitled ``The Economics of Equality'', in which he shared his years of experience to highlight the prevalence of poverty in the LGBTQ community. Always a man of action, most recently Rev. Sloan conceived of and launched the groundbreaking effort Proud2Share, designed to promote community and hilanthropic giving within the LGBTQ community to fight poverty and homelessness. His efforts in HIV/AIDS and poverty have been recognized by being selected the award recipient for the Illinois Department of Public Health Red Ribbon Award as well as the AIDS Legal Council of Chicago Advocate of the Year Award. In 2010, Rev. Sloan was inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame. The importance of charity and philanthropy can never be understated. Empathy, drive, and compassion are what make a great leader, and the community owes a debt of gratitude to Rev. Stan Sloan. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Reverend Stan Sloan for his tireless dedication to the LGBTQ community throughout his long and storied career. I urge my colleagues in congratulating Reverend Stan Sloan for all the work he has done both in the great city of Chicago and throughout our great nation.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, Chicago lost a tremendous judge, attorney, mother, wife, and friend on April 15th with the death of Justice Laura Liu. She fought a courageous battle against breast cancer for 5 years, and her spirit, passion, and determination never faltered. Born to immigrant parents, Justice Liu didn't start speaking English until elementary school, but ended up as class valedictorian. For nearly 20 years, Justice Liu worked as a litigator, then as a circuit court judge, and finally was appointed to the Illinois Appellate Court. In the court, Justice Liu was a strong advocate for interpreter services for immigrants and people with limited English who might have been otherwise overwhelmed. She was a tremendous advocate and mentor to Chicago's Chinese American community, setting an exemplary model for young boys and girls that their opportunities were endless if you worked hard. Our thoughts and prayers are with Justice Liu's family during this difficult time.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate our 46th Earth Day, it is critical that we recognize the opportunities that stem from addressing some of our most pressing environmental problems. All too often we hear the argument that environmental policies are agents of economic destruction. From the Clean Power Plan to renewable energy development and energy-efficient technologies, every time a new environmental policy is proposed, we hear the same rhetoric: This will kill jobs, drive up costs, destroy trade, and stifle America's ability to succeed. But the reality is those claims are simply not true. They have been debunked and proven wrong time and again, but the truth doesn't seem to matter when it comes to protecting our environment. Without a doubt, one of America's greatest assets is the ingenuity of its people. Throughout our Nation's history, American innovation has triumphed in the face of great challenges. Unleashing that American innovation can bring big wins for both the environment and the economy. There is no better example of this than when we look at our renewable energy sector. For decades, America has chased the promise of clean, domestic energy. In recent years, costs for numerous critical clean energy technologies--wind power, solar panels, super-energy-efficient LED lights and electric vehicles--have fallen dramatically. The accompanying surge in deployment has been impressive. While these technologies still represent a small percentage of their respective markets, that share is expanding at a rapid pace and influencing other markets. Today the U.S. generates 3 times as much wind power and 20 times as much solar power as we did in 2008. This kind of thinking will help States meet the EPA's requirements laid out in the Clean Power Plan. Compared with fossil fuel technologies, which are typically mechanized and capital-intensive, the renewable energy industry is more labor-intensive. This means that, on the average, more jobs are created for each unit of electricity generated from renewable sources than from fossil fuels. In addition to creating new jobs, increasing our use of renewable energy offers more important economic development benefits. Local governments collect property and income taxes and other payments from renewable energy project owners while owners of the land that wind projects are built on also receive lease payments ranging from $3,000 to $6,000 per megawatt of installed capacity. A new study from the U.S. Energy Information Administration suggests that, in the coming year, the booming solar sector will add more new electricity-generating capacity than any other energy sector, including natural gas and wind. The more we support clean energy innovation and new technological ideas, the better positioned we are to reap the economic rewards. Examples of those wins are all around, leading to States and communities investing in clean energy innovation and developing smart, low-cost technologies to help reduce energy costs. On this front, my home State of Illinois is moving full steam ahead. The city of Chicago has partnered with utility companies and citizen groups to work on a new initiative to get 1 million smart thermostats into northern Illinois homes by 2020. The innovative partnership offers rebates that will nearly halve the cost of thermostats that allow residents to control the temperatures of their homes via mobile devices. This helps us once again move the needle against climate change. Of course, clean energy technology isn't our only energy innovation success story. Energy efficiency is truly our Nation's greatest energy achievement. Without the gains in energy efficiency made since 1973, it is estimated that today's U.S. economy would require 60 percent more energy than we currently consume. Energy efficiency improvements over the last 40 years have reduced our national energy bill by more than $700 billion. Instead of working from the assumption that tighter regulations will hurt our government's export share, we should focus on the edge that we gain from innovation. This Earth Day, I challenge my colleagues to realize the opportunity that climate change provides us and support solutions that allow us to turn what used to be daunting challenges into profitable opportunities.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, in today's world, the threats we face are constantly changing. Our ability to keep America safe relies on our capacity to adapt quickly to these new and evolving threats. In the years following 9/11, the U.S. made significant changes to our intelligence and law enforcement capabilities that have stopped over 60 terror plots against the U.S. and saved countless American lives. But 9/11 was 15 years ago. The threats we face today are vastly different than the threats we faced then. It is time we reprioritize resources to confront this new reality. The recent terror attacks in Brussels and Paris confirm that one of our largest security vulnerabilities is soft targets, relatively unprotected venues where large groups of people gather. Soft targets include places we all frequent, like airports, transit systems, stadiums, restaurants, and shopping malls. They are easy to attack and difficult to protect. The recent attacks also showed that threats are becoming harder to detect. The ability to collect intelligence on terrorist intentions and terror plots is more challenging because of new encryption technology and the reliance on lone-wolf attacks. Because specific and credible threats are increasingly more difficult to uncover, we need to redouble our efforts and reprioritize our funding to reduce our vulnerabilities. Yet, alarmingly, current funding for the Federal programs designed to keep America safe fails to meet the new and growing threats we face. The primary responsibility of the Federal Government under the Constitution is to ``provide for the common defense,'' but, in recent years, Congress has made significant cuts to the Homeland Security programs that were designed to protect things like soft targets. Since the majority took over the House in 2010, Homeland Security grants to help States and localities protect against and respond to terror attacks have been cut in half. Urban Areas Security Initiative grants, which large cities like my hometown of Chicago use to invest in the training and equipment necessary to respond to their unique security threats, have been cut by over $200 million. Transit security funding, used by the Chicago Transit Authority to invest in camera systems that protect against terror attacks and have lowered crime by 50 percent, has been reduced by over 60 percent. And Buffer Zone Protection grants, which once helped cities defend critical infrastructure like stadiums, are no longer funded. To the detriment of our security, many of my House colleagues have championed the harmful, across-the-board spending cuts of sequestration that restrict our intelligence and law enforcement capabilities and, in 2014, forced a hiring freeze at the FBI. They champion these cuts even as the Secretary of Defense calls sequestration the ``biggest strategic danger'' to our national security, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs argues it poses a greater threat to national security than Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and ISIS. Last year, the House majority took the budget irresponsibility even further by threatening to shut down the Department of Homeland Security over a partisan fight over immigration. All the while, Congress continues to prioritize billions in funding to respond to threats posed by a cold war that ended decades ago. For example, we are spending $350 billion over the next decade on our outdated nuclear weapons policy. By simply eliminating our strategically obsolete stockpile of ICBMs, we could free up $2.6 billion a year, money that could be spent on intelligence, cybersecurity, and homeland security. While the goal of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to deter, detect, and prevent terror attacks remains the same, how we accomplish and fund that goal must continue to evolve to meet the new challenges we face. Protecting against new and evolving threats will not necessarily require additional spending, but it will require smarter spending. When it comes to national security, we must continue to ask ourselves what really keeps America safe in today's world.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, ``I look with increasing horror, along with a growing number of other Americans, at the great and bitter division that is taking place in our politics and the cynicism that is the end result of power for power's sake. We are losing sight of civility in government and politics. Debate and dialogue is taking a back seat to the politics of destruction and anger and control. Dogma has replaced thoughtful discussion between people of differing views.'' Mr. Speaker, these words were spoken by then-Governor Jim McGreevey in his farewell address to the State of New Jersey in 2004, and I fear that they are truer today than ever before. With Congress back in town for just 3 days before a 2\1/2\-week break, all anyone wants to know is if, not even when, we might actually get some real work accomplished for the American people. We are 3 months into the Second Session of the 114th Congress, and what do we have to show for it? Sadly, our record of accomplishment is short. To top it off, all our constituents are hearing in the media is the hateful rhetoric and vengefulness spewing from the mouths of the candidates in the Presidential debates. And now, unfortunately, our third branch of government can't escape the partisanship that is choking our Federal Government. This is not a new struggle for our great democracy. In fact, John Adams wrote to his wife about the same issue over 200 years ago. He wrote: ``I fear that in every assembly, Members will obtain an influence by noise, not sense; by meanness, not greatness; by contracted hearts, not large souls.'' Adams urged: ``There must be decency and respect, and veneration introduced for persons of authority of every rank, or we are undone. In a popular government, this is our only way . . .'' I couldn't agree more. Our constituents, our allies, and this world deserves much more from us. But all hope is not lost. Governor McGreevey finished his farewell address with these wise words: ``I urge you, my fellow citizens, to seek those who will build bridges between us, those who do not need to shout in order to be heard. We must have leaders who value their words as much as they do their actions and who, above all, believe in their heart what they say and do . . . Demand good and effective government from wise leaders who speak softly, with great ideas, who inspire people to work together for a common purpose. We, as a Nation, have done this in the past, and I know we can do it again.'' As the leaders of this great country, I urge my fellow colleagues in the House, Governors, and candidates alike to hold ourselves to a higher standard, because, as Herbert Hoover once said: ``When there is a lack of honor in government, the morals of the whole people are poisoned.''

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Congresswoman Watson Coleman and my pro-choice colleagues for inviting me to participate in this very timely and important conversation. As we await to hear the Supreme Court's oral arguments next week in the case of Whole Woman's Health, we must reflect on not only the serious implications of this particular case, but on the attacks on choice that have happened across the country this past year. The case against Whole Woman's Health threatens to take the number of clinics in Texas down from 19 to just 10 for the 5.4 million women of reproductive age in Texas. It will also set a legal precedent for years to come--perhaps decades--and it will shape the continued debate on a woman's right to choose. Clearly, this unacceptable assault on women's health places an undue burden on the women of Texas when accessing abortion and family planning services. I was proud to sign onto the Amicus brief with 162 congressional colleagues in support of Whole Woman's Health. This case, in particular, is a high profile and extreme example of the attacks that are becoming all too common across the United States. While abortion still remains legal in the years since Roe v. Wade, opponents of choice have attempted with varying degrees of success to chip away at a woman's right to choose, this despite the fact that abortions are at their lowest rates since Roe. Last year, we saw ideological attacks against Planned Parenthood from anti-choice activists attempting to mire the organization in scandal and force its closing. Those attacks stemmed from the illegally obtained and questionably edited so-called sting videos filmed by these same anti-choice activists. Unsurprisingly, Planned Parenthood has been cleared of any wrongdoing in every State that has conducted an investigation. And to top it off, a grand jury in Missouri has indicted those responsible for filming the videos. It goes to show this campaign against Planned Parenthood has been nothing less than a fraud. While I fundamentally support a woman's right to choose, it is important to point out that the clinics forced to close in Texas and across the U.S. serve women in ways far beyond providing safe abortions. In many cases, especially for low income and minority communities, these clinics serve as a primary healthcare provider. The services they provide include birth control, STD testing, cervical screenings, mammograms, counseling, and health education. It is crucial that we understand reproductive rights and choice is not a women's issue. It is a civil rights issue, and it is an American issue. In the City of Chicago, which I represent, women have widespread access to reproductive health services. But women in neighboring States like Indiana are often forced to cross State lines to find a clinic where she can have a safe abortion. This reality is unacceptable. Civil rights should not be dependent upon your ZIP Code. The decision in Whole Woman's Health will ultimately hold national implications. As a man, I am proud to stand up for choice. As a male Member of Congress, I take my responsibility to protect choice for women very seriously. Statistics show women's economic output is dramatically impacted for the better when they determine the timing and spacing of their pregnancies. When she is able to plan pregnancy, a woman is more likely to advance in education and the workforce. Conversely, unplanned pregnancies too often force women to leave school and to delay or abandon career ambitions outright in order to care for children before they are ready and with limited support and resources. In order for our society to ever truly be equal, women must have control of their bodies and determine with their partner if and when they want to have children. Here in Congress, most of us were afforded the right to plan our families. Should we deny this right to the constituents we serve? The future of millions of young women depend on the decision to be handed down in cases like Whole Woman's Health, and it is my sincere hope that the Court remains consistent in recognizing a woman's right to privacy and protects her right to make her own choices about her health.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, 2015 was a landmark year for global climate change, and that is not a good thing. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015 was our planet's hottest year on record. Last year the global average land surface temperature was 1.33 Celsius above the 20th century average, and 10 of the last 12 months tied or broke existing records for highest monthly global temperatures. Despite the fact that climate science and research consistently display the reality of climate change, some of my colleagues still debate its validity in this very Chamber. What is there to debate? More than 12,000 peer-reviewed, scientific studies are in agreement that climate change is real and humans are significantly to blame. For those of you keeping track at home, there are zero peer-reviewed scientific studies that state the opposite. One of the primary concerns of these scientific studies is that climate change might trigger events that will dramatically alter the Earth as we know it. Scientists have discovered a number of tipping points where abrupt changes in climate could create a variety of national and global effects. It is hard to predict when these events could occur; but we know that when they do, we will have very little warning. Reaching these critical points could lead to abrupt changes in the ocean, snow cover, permafrost, and the Earth's biosphere. Alarmingly, many of these events are triggered by warming levels of less than 2 degrees. We now know that, in the latter part of this century, we will find the planet's temperature pushing not 2 degrees, but 4, 5, even 6, degrees Celsius of warming. While it may seem minor, each degree makes a significant difference. A 2-degree shift in temperatures could lead to an increased rise in sea level by 55 centimeters. Levels have already risen by about 20 centimeters over the course of the 20th century, increasing flooding along coastlines, impacting people and properties. A 3-degree increase could impact water availability and accelerate drought and extreme heat waves. Each of these conditions would negatively impact the production of major crops, like wheat and rice, leading to global food security risks. Anything above a 4-degree increase would cause even more drastic consequences, such as extreme ocean acidification, a decline in glaciers, a change in ocean currents, and a nearly ice-free Arctic in the summer. While the majority of the detected shifts are distant from major population centers, the implications will be felt over large distances, creating significant economic and humanitarian consequences. As with any abrupt change in the Earth's system, a cascade of other transformations will likely follow, each building upon and exacerbating the others. We could see a shift in ecosystems, the collapse of permafrost in the Arctic, and an extensive species loss. Each of these changes would trigger massive implications for the natural systems and society as a whole. So what does all this mean? It means we must act now. As President Obama said in his State of the Union address: If you want to debate the science of climate change, feel free to do so, but you will be pretty lonely. Today America's business leaders, the Pentagon, the majority of Americans, the scientific community, and nations around the world recognize that we cannot wait to act. We saw evidence of this last year when more than 40,000 negotiators from 196 countries descended on the French capital for the Paris Climate Summit. The Summit provided the world with an effective global framework for addressing climate change, but our work is far from over. It is time to recognize that the consequences of inaction are far too great. If my colleagues are willing to put political ideologies aside and recognize that acting on climate change is not just in our planet's interest, but in the interest of humanity, we may still have a fighting chance. Albert Einstein once said: ``The world, as we have created it, is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.'' Now is the time for Congress to change our thinking and address the reality of climate change.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Price-Aderholt amendment, which seeks to modernize the Housing for Persons with AIDS Program to better reflect the current case concentration and understanding of HIV/AIDS. This will help ensure that funds are directed in a more equitable and effective manner. The AIDS population in Chicago certainly stands to benefit from such an update. The HOPWA program is a national safety net for people battling HIV/ AIDS, providing competitive formula grants since 1992. HOPWA prevents homelessness and permits thousands of households coping with the debilitating and impoverishing impact of HIV/AIDS to access and remain in care. It is also a proven prevention mechanism by helping people achieve lower viral loads, thus becoming less infectious. This is the foundation for better individual and community health outcomes. It is time for us to change the HOPWA distribution formula from one based on cumulative HIV/AIDS cases to a more updated formula based on current HIV/AIDS cases that reflect today's needs. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, given that small businesses have accounted for over 60 percent of the net new jobs created since the end of the recession, we should be doing more to simplify regulatory compliance so that small businesses can direct their resources to what they do best: innovating and growing our economy. Small businesses and small business investors were not the cause of the financial crisis and do not pose a significant risk to the rest of the economy. Yet, regulators like the SEC, which oversee the financial markets, too often craft regulations by which the costs to small businesses far outweigh the minimal benefits they may have on our economy. We need our regulators to take the concerns of small businesses seriously and to make small business growth a top priority. That is why I was proud to coauthor the SEC Small Business Advocate Act, which will establish an Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation within the SEC. This office will open a clear avenue of communication to the SEC leadership on issues affecting small businesses by maintaining a designated representative to advocate on their needs. This advocate will be responsible for helping small businesses resolve problems with the SEC, analyzing the potential impact of proposed rules and regulations on small businesses, and reaching out to small businesses to understand issues related to capital formation. In addition, this bill formalizes the Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies, which provides members of the small business community with another mechanism to communicate their concerns with the SEC. This legislation will not only improve the regulatory process for small-business owners, but also for the everyday investors and consumers who depend on them. This legislation has widespread support from representatives of the business community, and it passed unanimously out of committee. I urge my colleagues to empower small-business owners and entrepreneurs and support this commonsense, bipartisan legislation.