Mike Quigley

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, if anecdotal evidence were science, I would be standing here proclaiming that global warming is real, just step outside. It is severely hot, oppressive, simply unenjoyable. Often, I feel as if I'm standing behind an 18-wheeler blowing heat and exhaust in my face. But no, I'm just walking my dogs in Chicago no less. Chicago, the city of snow. Yes, snow, the stuff that emboldened those who said that global warming was a farce. ``Just think about that snow piled up against your door,'' they said. But global warming is part of a larger climate crisis--climate change. It is something the Union of Concerned Scientists say includes such events as more extreme storms, more severe droughts, deadly heat waves, rising sea levels, and more acidic oceans, to name a few. You might have noticed I'm citing the Union of Concerned Scientists, not the group of folks who notice anecdotally that the weather was extreme. It would do us good to heed the words of science and not the remarks of a few casual observers. I don't make my case that global warming is real because it's hot, just as it doesn't follow that global warming isn't real when it's cold. Extreme weather is climate change. Over 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies have concluded that global warming is real and potentially catastrophic. No scientific peer-reviewed studies have found the opposite--none. As of July 3, 56 percent of the continental United States was experiencing drought conditions. This marks the largest area affected by drought in the 12-year record kept by the U.S. Drought Monitor. Scientists note that temperature records reveal a long-term trend for warming that has been picking up speed. The first decade of this century was the warmest on record, according to NOAA's State of Climate in a 2010 report. It is real because science tells us so. We have sustained 1,644 record heat days from January to June of 2012. We have endured 631 days of record rainfall. We have shoveled our way out of 98 days of record snowfall. The prolonged heat wave this past spring included the hottest March since recordkeeping began in 1894. There were 671 records that were broken, according to the National Weather Service. April marked the end of the warmest 12-month stretch ever in the United States. What does all this snow, rain, heat, drought, ocean acidity, and raging forest fires mean? Scientists say it's global warming. Scientists say that our warming climate is causing more and more extreme weather events, and they can and will get worse by our inaction. Several weeks of snowmageddon, which prompted taunts of Al Gore by Congress, do not disprove scientific fact. At the same time, the brutality of today's untenable heat does not solidify my stance any more than the snow disproves Al Gore. Local temperatures taken as individual data points have nothing to do with the long-term trend of global warming. To get a real hand on global reading, scientists rely on changes in weather over a long period of time. Looking at high- and low- temperature data from recent decades shows that new record highs occur nearly twice as often as new record lows. So, no, my belief in global warming isn't sprung from a conversation with my neighbor nor a straw poll of people I'm sitting and sweating with at a Cubs game. My belief in global warming is borne of a respected acknowledgement of sound science that tells us that global warming is real. As Winston Churchill said, ``I never worry about action, but only about inaction.'' My concern--my fear--is that we have gone too far to save the planet we've neglected to protect because we've traded science for reading the wind. Global warming is real, and the extreme weather and sound science demonstrate that this is so. Let us know the crippling fear of inaction no longer.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague from Illinois to offer a bipartisan commonsense amendment to the Department of Defense appropriations bill. Our amendment cuts $988 million from the bill, which the committee added but the Navy did not request, for a 10th DDG-51 destroyer. It also puts the savings toward deficit reduction. Let's back up for a minute and explain how we got here. As part of the Department of Defense's new strategy, they are realigning force structure by reducing ground forces and making new investments in more agile sea and air forces. Toward this end, the Navy has entered into a multiyear procurement--or MYP--arrangement to purchase nine DDG-51 destroyers over the next 5 years. In order to fulfill one year of this MYP arrangement, the Navy requested just over $3 billion in the FY13 budget, yet the committee took it upon itself to give the Navy an extra billion dollars it didn't request and likely doesn't need for a 10th destroyer. To be fair, there was talk of purchasing a 10th destroyer, but on March 29, 2012, Sean Stackley, the Navy's acquisition executive, testified before a House Armed Services Subcommittee that he thought through competition he could get 10 ships for the price of 9. He notes in his testimony that the Navy has ``competition on this program--two builders building the 51s, and the competition has been healthy.'' He goes on to explain how he hopes to get a 10th ship out of the multiyear arrangement, saying ``our top line allowed for nine ships to be budgeted, but when we go out with this procurement, we're going to go out with a procurement that enables the procurement of 10 ships if we're going to achieve the savings that we're targeting across this multiyear arrangement.'' Mr. Stackley ends by explaining that the Navy can use leverage and competition to get 10 ships for the price of nine, and he thinks they have a pretty good shot. But rather than letting the Navy do its job, and letting the competition acquisition process work by putting the billion dollars on the table up front, the committee cut the legs out from underneath the competitive process. The addition of the extra billion dollars for another ship by the committee ends competition and negotiation, and puts a billion dollars on the table that we don't have to spend. Why not let the acquisition process take its course, and see what happens? I don't think we need the 10th ship, and I'm not completely convinced we need the other nine either. But even for those who do support a 10th destroyer, cutting this funding now does not preclude them from adding it later if it's needed. Unfortunately, this is one of the many examples of Congress supplanting its own parochial interests for that of the military and what's best for the country as a whole. This defense bill and all those before it are riddled with funding for weapons, bases, and projects we don't need to keep America safe. Rather, these bills include projects that support special Member interests back home. We can no longer afford to allow the desire to stimulate local economies to drive our defense and foreign policy. As we emerge from a deep recession and face a deficit topping $1 trillion for the fourth straight year, we must right-size our budget. Mr. Chairman, in terms of the ability to let Mr. Dold speak, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois.

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

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

Mr. QUIGLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

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

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the World War II veterans who traveled to Washington, DC, on July 11, 2012 with Honor Flight Chicago, a program that provides World War II veterans the opportunity to visit the World War II Memorial on The National Mall in Washington, D.C. This memorial was 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 11 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 memorial. 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 J. Abbott, Elizabeth M. Adamo, Kenneth H. Amdall, William B. Barnard, Philip Basic, Marvin D. Berns, Joseph A. Berttucci, Forest Black, Edward N. Boersma, Robert Bourdage, John A. Brodinski, Michael P. Cernyar, Leonard E. Chapp, Bernard J. Chesner, Daniel L. Chorney, Raymond E. Crotty, John A. Deora, Xenophon Doudalis, Robert C. Ellis, David Epstein, E. John Faassen, Natale Fazio, Peter A. Ferro, Ruthe C. Foster, Walter C. Gardynski, August Genge, Jr., Owen Gillespie, Helmuth Goering, Kent Goldbranson, W. Leonard Gregory, Lad Gregurich, John F. Gruber, Lewis Hague, Rueben W. Helander, Raymond F. Henders, James H. Hurley, Howard J. Jacklin, William N. Johnson, Raymond G. Kapinus, Edward Kelby, Vette E. Kell, Arthur M. Koblish, Ronald E. Kregel, Sophie E. Kulaga, James Lamont, Donald L. Lawler, Richard H. Leadbetter, Albert Lee, Howard D. Levinson, Philip J. LoMonaco, Louis Lowy, Raymond Lowy, Teddy A. Madej, Alvin B. Manheim, Randall E. McMinn, Eugene S. Mikos, John R. Minerick, Salvatore Morello, William R. Morrow, Glen E. Nelson, Henry L. Offerman, Edwin Ogonowski, Arthur Olsen, Calvin Parmele, Myron Petrakis, Raymond Anthony Pfeifer, Martin A. Poenisch, Daniel C. Reese, Amos John Roberts, John Patrick Roche, Ray Rooney, Frederick Rosenow, Eugene H. Seibert, Richard A. Siver, Donald E. Skelton, Charles A. Smith, Ora L. Smith, Richard L. Soderlund, Thomas E. Sullivan, Arthur R. Tessmann, Jasper C. Tromp, William John Unger, Jack Vollriede, Owen F. Wagener, Harry R. Warren, Joseph G. Wegrzyn, Oddie Wiley, Raymond A. Wilke, Ferguson L. Willis, William Fred Wilson, William F. Wolf, Arthur W. Youngberg.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Those bringing this contempt vote say they want to talk about gunwalking and how to stop it. Okay, let's have that conversation. They say they want to stop gun trafficking and keep our ATF agents safe. Well, then let's properly fund the ATF, which has the same number of agents since 1970. They say they want to stop gun trafficking. Well, then appoint a permanent ATF Director, which the agency hasn't had in 6 years. They say they want to stop gun trafficking. Well, then let's pass some laws which actually deter straw purchasers. Straw purchasers can currently buy thousands of AK-47s, lie on their paperwork, and the penalty is equivalent to a moving violation. They say they want to stop gun trafficking. Well, then let's give the agents in the field what they've been asking for: the ability to track multiple purchases of long guns. These long guns include AK-47s, variant assault weapons, and .50 caliber semiautomatic sniper rifles, the weapons of choice for international drug cartels. They say they want to stop gun trafficking. Well, then let's close the gun show loophole which currently allows anyone to purchase any gun they want without background check. Felons, domestic violence abusers, those with severe mental illness, even those on the terrorist watch list can currently walk into a gun show and purchase any gun they want. Yes, 2,000 guns were allowed to walk to Mexico, but the truth is tens of thousands of guns flow across our border every year because of those lax gun laws. But those bringing this contempt vote don't want to have this conversation, and they aren't serious about stopping gun trafficking. They simply want to embarrass the administration, even though the committee's 16-month investigation found no evidence the Attorney General knew about gunwalking, even though there was no evidence of White House involvement in gunwalking, all of which Chairman Issa admitted on national TV last week. So if we're going to talk about gun trafficking, let's be clear: this is about politics, not safety.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the World War II veterans who traveled to Washington, DC, on June 19, 2012 with Honor Flight Chicago, a program that provides World War II veterans the opportunity to visit the World War II Memorial on The National Mall in Washington, DC. This memorial was 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 19 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 memorial. 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. Nick Angelopulos, Olin Apgar, James E. Atkinson, Albert Augustyn, Douglas Babitzke, David Baruch, John M. Campbell, Lester Catlin, John Ciolek, Joseph T. Connelly, Edward W. Connelly, Peter J. Cortopassi, Eldon L. Cueno, Charlie L. Davis, Donald DeKraker, Thaddeus J. Dobrowolski, Francis Duffy, Ladimir F. Dvorak, Bernard Ellman, Melvin Elmhorst, Eugene T. Entrican, Peter Eugenis, Alfred Evinger, Robert M. Flynn, Charles Ford, Rogers P. Freedlund, Wilbur Lee German, Lawrence E. Gilford, Frank J. Gliwa, George Griner, Eugene E. Hainchek, Martin A. Halloran, Harold M. Halsten, William V. Hervoy, Elden E. Holzwart, Ernest Hoskins, Richard H. Hyde, David S. Jameson, Evert P. Johnson, Edward S. Killian, Edward Kozlow, Ralph H. Krichbaum, William E. Krueger, Clarence E. Kuhlman, Walter Leslie, Aaron H. Levin, Louis G. Limperes, Edmund Lozano, Frederick Ruiz Maravilla, Emil L. Marcotte, Donald J. Marsaglia, Henry Alvin Mathews, William McNabola, Robert A. Mortensen, Frank J. Muehlbauer, James M. Muirhead, John Mullen, Thomas J. Mulligan, Harold Nicodem, Lawrence E. Nielsen, John S. Opitz, Robert D. Pasquale, Angelo J. Pasquesi, William Payne, Sr., Frederick Thomas Pennix, Joseph Persico, Edward Richards, Kenneth Richardt, Walter Schauer, Arthur Shapiro, Joseph W. Sheade, William S. Sherwood, William F. Shipp, Edward Skrapka, Donald Frank Slapak, Calvin Sleeman, Robert N. Smedberg, Arne Sorensen, Salvatore Sparacio, Donald F. Spitzer, Lyle Claude Springer, Robert Steege, Conrad L. Steindler, Lester Strejc, Evan B. Stubbs, Benjamin Sultz, Edward Telman, William L. Tiffin, Alexander T. Valos, Joseph J. Waickus, Reginald R. Watt, Bentley Weitzman, Bobby D. Whisler, Sidney Winters, Richard N. Wunderink.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Having respectfully heard the argument, I would stand on the statements we have made and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry ravaged the gulf coast. We passed legislation, we convened commissions, and we swore that we would learn. Have we? I fear the answer is no, and I'm not the only one. In April of this year, the Presidential panel that investigated the explosion gave the Obama administration a B, the oil industry a C-plus, and Congress a D for refusing to act on any of the recommendations of the commission. The bill that stands before us today seeks to increase domestic oil and gas production and reduce regulation of the energy industry. I've said it before and I'll say it again, sometimes this place feels like Groundhog Day, and I am Bill Murray. So, in the spirit of deja vu, I am offering an amendment today that mirrors legislation I introduced in the 111th Congress as a response to the BP oil catastrophe. The amendment would reconfigure the existing presumption that extraction comes first and conservation comes second. The measure would change our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf policy and mandate precaution from a derivative that may imply that protection of the environment is secondary to expeditious development; declares that protection and maintenance--and where appropriate, restoration--of ocean ecosystems and coastal environment is of primary importance; makes clear that OCS leasing, exploration, and development will be authorized in limited areas of the ocean only when science shows that those initiatives can proceed with minimal risk to the health of ocean ecosystems; protects Important Ecological Areas, or IEAs, by requiring the Secretary to consider geographical, geological, and ecological characteristics of the OCS areas. And finally, it amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to require specific precautions for areas with particular physical or environmental characterizations from OCS leasing. In the Commission's review, one of the chairmen stated: Across the board, we are disappointed with Congress' lack of action. Two years have passed since the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon killed 11 workers, and Congress has yet to enact one piece of legislation to make drilling safer. Let us do one thing to make our public safe, to keep them healthy, and to spur economic development through conservation and the creation of green jobs. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on yet another environmental ruinous bill. This motion would instruct surface transportation conferees to retain the language of H.R. 2273, which prohibits the EPA from regulating coal ash. Coal ash is the toxic combination of mercury, boron, aluminum, thallium, sodium, and arsenic that is produced by burning coal. Shockingly, people living near unlined coal ash ponds have a risk of cancer that is 2,000 times greater than EPA's acceptable level. This motion would disallow the EPA from doing its job. Allowing the EPA to enforce safeguards against coal ash pollution would help to avoid disasters like the 2008 spill in Tennessee, where a dam holding more than 1 billion gallons of toxic coal ash failed. That spill destroyed 300 acres and dozens of homes, devastated wildlife, poisoned two rivers--and apparently taught us nothing. I urge my colleagues to oppose this latest attempt to bar the EPA from saving lives and preserving the environment.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, Americans have a penchant for believing that more is always better. That unfettered and unabridged access will solve problems. H.R. 2578, the Conservation and Economic Growth Act, purports to create jobs by violating or eliminating over 35 laws that currently govern our land, air, water, and importantly, our Nation's borders. The idea follows that in giving the Department of Homeland Security free rein to traverse the roughshod lands around our borders, we'll be safer. But, the Department of Homeland Security didn't ask for this access, nor do they believe it's warranted. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a Senate subcommittee in March that unrestricted authority over public lands was unnecessary for the Border Patrol to do its job and was ``bad policy.'' And, we're not just talking the lands on the collar of America's borders. No, this bill would disrupt your vacation in Cape Hatteras by lifting necessary current restrictions regarding the use of off-road vehicles. The bill would allow corporations to dip right into Alaska's Tongass National Forest, allowing for trees that started growing before the Revolutionary War to be felled. And, if someone decided that development of surveillance equipment in a national park was a good idea--say on Chief Mountain in Glacier National Park--it could be installed without any public comment or even internal review process. This last point was made by two farmers and ranchers from the Mexico and Canadian borders, with more than a century of land-use between the two. These folks who work the land, who have toiled to create and produce what the land will provide to them and their families for years, those who know it best--oppose this bill. ``In Arizona,'' the gentlemen write, ``we are concerned that poorly designed roads and fences will damage ongoing range land restoration work. Private landowners have spent thousands of dollars and manpower hours restoring these lands to their original state, which could all be compromised by these bills.'' Another veteran publically denounced the bill in an op-ed, stating, ``As a veteran, a patriot of this nation and a Californian, I can't stand by while these lands are threatened. I'm proud to have worn this country's uniform and I want to continue serving. That's why I've chosen to follow in the path of the great Teddy Roosevelt--a man who was both a soldier and a conservationist--and stand up for our public lands.'' That's right. A veteran, a rancher, a farmer, the Secretary of Homeland Security, are NOT extolling the virtues of a true wild, wild west. The stewards of the land know that in order for crops to flourish; In order to protect the Sweet Grass Hills, in Montana, a sacred location for many tribal ceremonies--and a vital source of water for surrounding communities that it is protected from mining and most motorized travel; In order to preserve the incredible natural beauty and uniqueness that makes this land great; We must protect it. Over 100 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt addressed a crowd in Kansas, a state that knows its lands. ``I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land,'' he said, ``but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us . . .'' ``Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war-- There is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us. I fear we miss the mark on today's legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in my opposition.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, since late 2009, the Army Corps of Engineers has been working on a study of the Great Lakes and Mississippi Interbasin-- ``To evaluate options and technologies to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River.'' Recently, the Corps indicated this study may not be completed until March 2016. When it comes to aquatic invasive species, 7 years is 7 years too long. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio introduced and passed an amendment to the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, ensuring that the Corps finishes their study no later than July 1, 2014. Further, the amendment ensures that the Corps fully examines the feasibility of all options, including permanent hydrological separation. I can't help but stand here today and express my sincere disappointment for the missed opportunities in the legislative vehicle before us. The Energy and Water Appropriations bill that we consider on the House floor this week is not only missing this vital amendment, but its priorities are way out of whack. The bill increases funding for the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, as well as for fossil fuels programs and nuclear energy research and development. Meanwhile, funding would be reduced for a wide range of very important activities including: Army Corps of Engineers projects, Energy Department science programs, advanced energy research, defense and non- defense environmental cleanup activities, nuclear non-proliferation programs, and most renewable energy programs (including solar, wind, water and geothermal programs). But, to the point at hand--the Great Lakes and the terrifying prospect that we might continue standing still on this issue of invasive species prevention. First and foremost, I must recognize the hard work and bipartisan effort from the Senators, including Senator Durbin, and am hopeful that this provision is preserved throughout the appropriations process. After all, this amendment does not tell anybody what to do. It simply recognizes the urgency of the Asian carp threat to the Great Lakes and compels the Corps to quicken its study of solutions in the face of a potential catastrophe that no one wants. The Great Lakes make up 20 percent of our fresh water and are home to a fishing and boating industry worth 7 billion dollars annually. The Lakes are a priceless treasure for the millions of people who live in the region. We must do all we can to encourage a speedy creation of an action plan to block Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes. In 1998 the late Senator Paul Simon predicted wars would be fought over water. Let us not pretend this is near as drastic as war. But, at the same time, let us not neglect or fail to acknowledge that the importance of today's actions will weigh heavily on the successes of tomorrow. I urge the Committees to preserve and protect Senator Brown's amendment and hope that the final Energy and Water package looks far better for our land, air and water than it does today.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the falsely named Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, or PRENDA. This might be one of the most disingenuous bills to ever come to the floor of the House. The authors of this bill are talking out of both sides of their mouth. Today, I want to set the record straight. In one breath, the proponents of this bill say they are protecting female fetuses by preventing abortions based on sex and that we must pass this bill to protect women everywhere and show that girls are as valid as boys. Yet, just last week, these same Members obstructed the passage of an expanded Violence Against Women Act that would have protected all victims of violence. The same Members who today espouse equality for women voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which will help combat the discrimination against women that keeps them earning 77 cents for every dollar that men earn. The same Members who today talk about protecting female babies continue to vote to gut the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which will be used to provide lifesaving breast and cervical cancer screenings to millions of the very women PRENDA's proponents claim to care so much about. Here's the truth: this is not about women's equality. PRENDA is simply another attempt by choice opponents to obstruct women's access to reproductive health care. I agree with the bill's proponents that abortions based on sex are a problem around the world, and I agree that we must take action to stop these abusive practices both at home and around the world. But let me be clear that this bill will not prevent sex-selective abortions. Here's why: First, criminalizing such practices simply will not work. Banning sex-selective abortions has already been tried in various countries around the world, and what expert agencies such as the World Health Organization--which operate in these countries--have found is that these bans don't prevent abortions. Rather, they simply result ``in a greater demand for clandestine procedures which fall outside regulations, protocols, and monitoring and basic safety.'' These restrictions serve only to drive these procedures underground, making them less safe. Our own history proves this point; Second, criminalization of sex-selective abortions would force physicians to question women about their reasons for seeking abortion. It would likely compel physicians to target certain groups of women from cultures where sex-selection abortion is more prevalent. To avoid liability, physicians may even cease providing such care to entire groups of women simply because of their race. This bill would promote racial profiling and discrimination; Additionally, targeting such motivations in practice would be nearly impossible. According, to an analysis by the World Health Organization and four other U.N. agencies, ``prosecuting offenders is practically impossible.'' And, further, ``proving that a particular abortion was sex selective is equally difficult.'' These expert international organizations do offer a viable solution to address this issue, a solution unmentioned in H.R. 3541. Address the root causes which drive individuals to prefer sons over daughters. The United Nations, through its work in nations where sex selection is prevalent, has stated that the most effective way to address this son preference is by fighting the root economic, social, and cultural causes of sex inequality. South Korea successfully lowered its male-to-female ratio from 116 boys for every 100 girls in the nineties to 107 boys per 100 girls in 2007. They did this by passing laws to improve the legal status of women and by implementing a public education campaign emphasizing the importance of women. If we're going to consider this bill, let's be honest about it. Its supporters are not promoting women's equality, and they are not serious about preventing sex-selective abortions. If they were, they would be promoting programs to empower women and girls to combat son preference. Instead, they are criminalizing physicians, profiling cultural groups, and driving abortion services underground. The truth is that this bill is another attempt to restrict women's reproductive health care wrapped in the rhetoric of women's rights. Don't be fooled by PRENDA. Vote ``no.''

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise, as doth the golden orb pulled across the sky each day by the chariot of Apollo, to decry an ignominy perpetuated on this Body by the captious Sunlight Foundation. Mr. Speaker, the Sunlight Foundation says we talk dumb. How can the House of Lincoln, Jefferson and Wilbur Mills suffer such excoriation? I deem the Sunlight Foundation's findings fatuous. There has been no deliquescence of Congressional discourse. Speak we not of life, liberty and hockey? In the words of Francois de la Rochefoucauld, who I believe was a defenseman for the original Canucks, ``True eloquence consists in saying all that should be said, and that only.'' So true. That is why as the elected arbiter of erudition from the 5th Congressional District, I decry the Foundation's obvious schadenfreude in our dictional dystopia. Let me repeat that word again: schadenfreude, which captures the zeitgeist of this badinage. That is not to say there have been errors in eloquence. But soft! What F-bombs from Rahm's office breaks? His monosyllabic vocabulary evoked images of the corporeal, the priapistic and the unprintable. Alas, our words may not always dance ``trippingly on the tongue,'' as Hamlet encourages of his players in Act III of that eponymous work. But nor do they need to. As Bertrand Russell said, ``To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy.'' And so we do our best in pursuit of that august goal. As to the Sunlight Foundation's farcical fomentations, I leave you with the thoughts of one post-modern philosopher, known for his dialectical ruminations on the salubrious effects of fermented hops and barley. ``Facts are meaningless,'' notes Homer Simpson. ``You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!'' So if the Sunlight Foundation must lampoon our verbal buffoonery, reducing us to linguistic lummoxes, remember Cecil Terwilliger's immortal retort to his brother Sideshow Bob's comment about spending four years in clown college: ``I'll thank you not to refer to Princeton that way.''

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the World War II veterans who traveled to Washington, D.C. on May 23, 2012 with Honor Flight Chicago, a program that provides World War II veterans the opportunity to visit the World War II Memorial on The National Mall in Washington, D.C. This memorial was 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 23 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 memorial. 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. Robert Agramonte, Anthony P. Barrett, Raymond J. Bayster, Kenneth I. Beardsley, Howard B. Blumenthal, William Brandfon, Robert Chapman Buckley, Carl C. Burgess, John W. Capron, James P. Carney, Irwin E. Chukerman, Otto Gabriel Chvosta, Frederick A. Coleman, John Fred Corradetti, Edward Cygan, William J. Darras, Francis J. Dawson, Everett L. Dean, David R. Denis, Elaine L. Detweiler, G. Grant Duncan, Edward A. DuVernay, William J. Eisler, Jr., Harris J. Enervold, Victor F. Erdelac, Charles P. Esposito, Raymond Farley, Clyde F. Friedman, George F. Gebes, Louis Joseph Giannini, Howard Gilbert, Richard D. Golden, Joseph H. Gondek, Robert Fred Groen, Frederick L. Hanson, Hubert K. Hawbecker, Edwin J. Helman, George Hewitt, Harold M. Hogueisson, James M. Holec, Edward J. Hollowed, Richard Casper Hoogenboom, Raymond P. Hynek, Julius Jackson, Albert S. Jacobson, Kenneth Jahnke, Richard J. Kalina, Benjamin F. Kelly, Thomas Stanley Ketcik, John H. Klingberg, Max Kolpas, Albert Kreitzer, Lenon Lathan, Kenneth Lawrence, William Leonard, Samuel David Levine, Edward F. Lobus, Emil L. Martino, Rufus E. Meeks, Marion Messman, Ernest P. Meszaros, Walter G. Moeller, James P. Moffett, Ralph Mollo, Jerome Moss, Jr., William Mossman, Robert E. Murray, Edward Obrochta, John Pankovich, Charles V. Parker, Michael Pill, Carlton Hunt Prindeville, Theodore Purvin, Raymond F. Pusczan, Carl M. Qualeatti, John Thomas Quinn, Louis T. Rivard, Benjamin S. Rosales, Edward J. Rudenga, Walter S. Rybicki, Lawrence N. Sands, Jr., Vaile J. Scott, Vernon P. Seiler, Marguerite K. Smith, Eli Sobat, George F. Soukup, Paul B. Stoxen, Richard Earl Taylor, Joseph E. Tierney, Fred H. Tolzien, Dennis Trettel, Harold S. Troupin, Robert G. Wachholz, Edward C. Williams, Jr., Joseph T. Zich.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I am offering a commonsense amendment with my friend from the other side of the aisle Mr. Hultgren from Illinois. Our amendment simply asks the Government Accountability Office to study the packaging procedures for hazardous materials by Department of Defense, and submit recommendations for improvements to Congress. Safe and timely shipment of supplies and equipment to our troops is vital to their safety and success. Unfortunately, due to the extremely complicated packaging requirements for hazardous materials, a large volume of needed supplies are often frustrated, or delayed. According to one recent study by the Air Force, 73 percent of the hazmat frustrated shipments had no shipping documents and were delayed 11 15 days on average. These delayed shipments harm our troops and costs us billions. By reducing frustrated shipments by just 3 percent, DOD could save $2 billion annually. Our amendment would require GAO to examine current shipping processes and identify improvements in order to expedite shipments, improve safety and reduce costs, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, the fact remains, studies still show this a dangerous vehicle. Studies still show it is suboptimal. Studies still show it is wildly over cost. I want to help marines. I want to save marine lives. That's why this amendment is appropriate. It is, in the end, still dangerous pork with wings. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I continue to reserve.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment with my friend from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) to cut funding for the V 22 Osprey and put the savings toward deficit reduction. As many know, the Osprey has a long and troubled past. According to a 2009 GAO report, the Osprey was not suited to fly safely in extreme heat, excessive sand, or under enemy fire. The GAO also found that the Osprey was 186 percent over budget, costing over $100 million per unit to produce, or five times more than the Sea Knight helicopter it was designed to replace. More recently, the Pentagon testing found that the readiness rate of the V 22 was well below that of traditional aircraft, noting: Its average mission capable rate was 53 percent from June 2007 to May 2010, well below the required rate of 82 percent. Sadly, due to these severe shortcomings, the V 22 has taken the lives of 36 individuals, including 31 servicemembers. Just last month, two marines lost their lives when an Osprey crashed in Morocco. Now, I understand that since the 2009 report, a number of improvements have been made. Costs are being reduced and safety is being improved. I also understand the unique benefits the V 22 can provide to our servicemembers, especially for rescue operations. But these operations can be completed with less expensive helicopters. And here's the bottom line: we're emerging from a recession. We have a deficit topping $1 trillion for 4 straight years, and we have limited resources, which means we have to make choices. As we look to reduce our deficit, we have to put everything on the table, including defense. Defense spending comprises close to 20 percent of our budget and yet this Defense authorization completely exempts any cuts from defense. In fact, it actually increases spending by over $4 billion over the President's request. We have to take a hard look at what we are spending and ask ourselves: Is this essential? Given its continued cost overruns, poor safety record, and the fact that it can be replaced with less expensive helicopters, I think it is clear that the V 22 is not essential. At best it's suboptimal. It is certainly not essential. And I'm not alone. President George H.W. Bush tried to zero out funding for the V 22, but Congress wouldn't let him. Former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney tried to zero out funding for the V 22, but Congress wouldn't let him. And now the President's Bipartisan Fiscal Commission, the Bipartisan Policy Commission, and the Sustainable Defense Task Force have all recommended cutting the V 22 and replacing it with less expensive MH 60 helicopters. But the reality is one of the reasons we block cuts to the V 22 is because 2,000 companies make supply parts for the Osprey from 40 States. I get it. The Department of Defense has become a jobs program. If all we're worried about is job creation, we'd be better off building bridges and transit programs because in the end we have to remember the big picture. Choosing to fund this over-budget, dangerous, nonessential plane means cuts in other vital areas such as education, infrastructure, and health care. I encourage my colleagues to join me in scrutinizing this budget, setting priorities, and cutting programs that aren't essential in order to protect ones that are. This Defense authorization bill includes a long list of nonessential programs, all of which should be cut. But a vote for my amendment to cut the over-budget, under-performing V 22 Osprey is a step in the right direction. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. QUIGLEY. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today because our Nation is at a crossroads. We are emerging from a deep recession but face a deficit topping $1 trillion for the 4th straight year. And while we all agree that we must reduce our deficit, the real question, of course, is: How? How we decide to reduce our deficit will not only define our budget, it will define who we are as a Nation. Will we be a Nation that cuts vital programs like food and Medicaid in order to not only preserve but grow an outsized defense budget? Or will we choose a middle ground that is balanced, bipartisan, big, and leaves nothing off the table, including defense? Sadly, the National Defense Authorization Act before us offers no middle ground and is not bipartisan. It is not balanced. At a time when we are being asked to cut education, infrastructure, and health care, this defense bill increases spending $4 billion over the President's request. Let me be clear. We all want to cut spending. In fact, I, myself, introduced a bipartisan budget that mirrored the Simpson-Bowles plan and would have reduced the deficit with two-thirds cuts and one-third revenue. But the key to developing a bipartisan, balanced plan is to put everything on the table, including defense. Military spending has more than doubled in the last 10 years and now comprises close to 20 percent of our overall budget. We spend almost four times more on defense than China and more than the next 10 largest military spenders combined. We spend $500 million a year on military bands alone. But it's not just about what we spend; it's also how we spend. Former Secretary of Defense Gates called for billions in cuts, saying, ``what had been a culture of endless money'' at DOD must ``become a culture of savings and restraint.'' Admiral Mike Mullen once called our debt the ``greatest threat to our national security.'' The Sustainable Defense Task Force and the Bipartisan Policy Center have also outlined close to $1 trillion in defense cuts that can still keep us safe. But this defense budget doesn't reflect the expertise of our military leaders, defense experts, or the American people. It ignores our military leaders by including a new east coast missile interceptor the Pentagon doesn't want, and it rolls back efforts by the DOD to be more energy efficient because the commanders on the ground know that lives are lost transporting fuel to troops abroad. It ignores military experts by funding the deadly V 22 Osprey, which is 186 percent over budget, it is not safe to fly in extreme heat or excessive sand, has killed 36 servicemembers, and can be replaced with cheaper helicopters. It also ignores experts such as Henry Kissinger, who promote drastically reducing our nuclear stockpile by including a huge funding increase for nuclear upgrades. Finally, perhaps more importantly, it ignores the American people, who want a smaller military footprint and want our troops home from Afghanistan. According to a recent report released at the Stimson Center, the public supports cutting the defense budget by 18 percent. And according to the latest opinion polls, close to seven in 10 Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan, yet this defense bill includes language aimed at slowing down the withdrawal of U.S. troops. We aren't fighting the Cold War anymore, yet this budget continues to invest billions in nuclear weapons and thousands of troops stationed in Europe and Asia. Today our greatest threat is a global network of extremists who find safe haven in ungoverned spaces across the world. There have been at least 45 terrorist attacks plotted against the U.S. since 9/11, and each one of them was foiled, not by our mass ground forces in Afghanistan, but through intelligence, policing, and citizen engagement. According to terrorism expert Erik Dahl of the Naval Postgraduate School, when it comes to domestic attacks and securing the homeland, what works is really good, old-fashioned policing, law enforcement, tips from the public, and police informants. Our enemy today must be caught with less costly policing, intelligence gathering, and special operations, not multibillion dollar tanks and nukes. The real ramification of overspending on defense is not simply that we have too many unneeded nukes or planes, but that we don't have enough resources to support vital domestic investments such as health care, education, and infrastructure needed to remain a superpower. Military power is not simply about spending more than our adversaries. Real military power, argues Kori Schake, a former McCain advisor, is ``premised on the solvency of the American Government and the vibrancy of the U.S. economy.'' In order to maintain that vibrancy, we must get our fiscal house in order and do so by reexamining our defense spending, and making cuts and reforming where necessary.