Mike Quigley

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, on May 11th, my vote on rollcall No. 309 was incorrectly recorded as ``aye,'' when I intended to vote ``no.'' I did not see the error until it was too late. I ask that the record reflect my strong opposition to H.R. 1229 and my intention to vote no on this legislation.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Anthony Psaromatis, District Manager of the Chicago Social Security Administration, Northwest Office. After over 45 years of service and numerous awards for his dedication and commitment to public service, Mr. Psaromatis will be retiring on May 31, 2011. Mr. Psaromatis has worked in offices around the Nation and around the world. He began his career in 1965 in Huntington, West Virginia. Throughout the years, Mr. Psaromatis also worked in various offices in Ohio, Baltimore, MD and also provided Social Security benefits overseas in Athens, Greece and Frankfurt, Germany. In 1990, Mr. Psaromatis returned to the United States to continue public service work in the Chicago Northwest Social Security Office. He has served the Jefferson Park community for nearly 21 years. As District Manager, Mr. Psaromatis has made an enormous impact on the community. He did so by giving speeches about Social Security benefits and programs at airports, business and community centers. In order to establish guidelines on how to best serve the public, Mr. Psaromatis met with Congressional and Senatorial Aides. He has also fought for the large Polish population in Jefferson Park to provide better resources. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a deeply grateful community and with enormous appreciation for decades of dedication to public service and providing assistance to communities in America and overseas, I thank Mr. Anthony Psaromatis for his extraordinary leadership and selfless commitment to his family and staff at the Chicago Northwest Social Security Office. Thank you, Tony, and we wish you, Martha, your sons, Michael and Anthony, daughter-in-law Bridget, and granddaughters, Kallie and Kirie all the happiness in the future.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, on May 11th, my vote on Rollcall vote No. 309 was incorrectly recorded as ``aye'', when I intended to vote ``nay''. I did not see the error until it was too late. I ask that the record reflect my strong opposition to H.R. 1229 and my intention to vote no on this legislation.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1229 and H.R. 1230. We like to stand on this floor and talk about the things we can't agree on. On this issue, there's more common ground than you might think. We all seek to end our dependence on foreign oil because it endangers our environment, hurts our economy and weakens our national security. Our disagreement lies in potential solutions. In order to lower gas prices we can and must crack down on oil speculators, end big oil handouts, invest in public transit and electric vehicles and increase corporate average fuel economy standards. The other side of the argument, the one that is presented today and that we will be voting on, would have you believe that all we need to do is increase our domestic oil resources and remove regulations. Regulations that have purportedly forced us to look outside our nation's borders for oil. Our answers do not lie in more oil--our answers lie in conservation and smart investments. They do not lie in increasing our oil supply, because, let's face it, oil prices are based on a global market, and one nod from OPEC would make any increase in U.S. domestic supplies irrelevant. Our answers cannot be found by damaging the ecosystems the industries along our coast rely on. And, our answers will not be solutions that defy our military experts who are saying oil ain't the answer. Earlier this week, I offered an amendment that was not made in order by the Rules Committee--an amendment that said we must look at the damage we could incur before we extract oil and gas. This same common sense must be applied to our energy plan. We can proactively move our nation toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil so that we take control of our energy future, protect our nation, our economy and our environment--and we must. But, these are not our solutions.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3 and to remind my colleagues of two key dates. January 20, 2011, the day H.R. 3 was introduced. Just 3 months ago, the authors of this extremist, offensive bill introduced a version of H.R. 3 that would have redefined rape and incest. They don't want us to remember, but we cannot forget 173 Members of Congress signed their names to a bill that would have redefined rape to exclude women who are unconscious, mentally disabled, or forced into sex by threat. The authors of this bill would also like us to forget another important date: January 22, 1973. On that day, the Supreme Court ruled that women have the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies and their own lives. But we will not forget that date, and we will not forget the 173 Members of this body who want to redefine rape and incest, and we will not turn back the clock to a time when women could not make their own choices and access vital care. We will not forget. We will not go back, and we must not pass H.R. 3.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, in the great debate over oil and gas prices, there are actually many things we can all agree on. We agree our dependence on foreign oil endangers our environment, hurts our economy, and weakens our national security. Our disagreement lies in potential solutions. I believe that in order to lower gas prices, we can and must crack down on oil speculators, end Big Oil handouts, invest in public transit and electric vehicles, and increase corporate average fuel economy standards. The other side of the argument would have you believe that all we need to do is increase our domestic oil resources and remove regulations--regulations that purportedly forced us to look outside our Nation's borders for oil. Our answers do not lie in more oil. Our answers lie in conservation and smart investments. Talk about smart investment--every increase of 1 mile per gallon in auto fuel efficiency yields more oil than can be found in two Arctic National Wildlife Refuges. An improvement right now of 2.7 miles per gallon would eliminate our need for all Persian Gulf oil. But it's not a question of simple domestic supply and demand either, another argument the other side of this issue will use. Oil prices are set on a global oil market. Historically, such small increases in U.S. production have had little or no impact on world oil prices. The U.S. Energy Information Administration, or EIA, states in a 2008 report that Arctic Refuge oil production ``is not expected to have a large impact on world oil prices,'' noting that OPEC ``could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR coastal plain production by reducing its exports by an equal amount.'' Again, our answer does not lie in increased domestic oil production. Our answer lies in conservation and in a solid commitment to investment in renewable energy resources. Recent increases in conservation and use of alternative technologies has cut our Nation's projected need for imported oil between now and 2050 by more than 100 billion barrels. That's 10 times more benefit that we might be able to get during the same period from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, without sacrificing one of our Nation's most valued wilderness ecosystems. In the past few years, we've taken small steps to focus on conservation rather than production. In late 2007, corporate average fuel standards, commonly known as CAFE standards, received their first overhaul in more than 30 years. This was a huge step in the right direction, but there remains much work to do. The bills we will consider in the coming week will endanger our environment, hurt our economy, and weaken our national security. It seems to me these are the very same concerns we have with an overarching reliance and addiction to foreign oil. H.R. 1229 and H.R. 1230 supplant our national environmental policies, tell residents along our coasts we don't care how they feel about drilling in their waters, damage the ecosystems the industries along our coasts rely on, and go against what military experts have been saying about drilling. Just weeks ago, several former military officers shared their thoughts and concern. ``America's dependence on oil constitutes a clear and present danger to the security and welfare of the United States.'' And they continue to say they are concerned with congressional efforts to undermine the agencies charged with overseeing extraction. What they are saying is it's important to reduce our dependence on foreign oil for our national security's sake, and it's important to retain regulatory authority to oversee drilling and extraction of oil and gas. Then, you follow that it's important to regulate our extraction in order to protect our Nation. These bills do not offer solutions. And what is worse, a full year following the disaster of the Macondo/Deepwater well, we have yet to reform our Outer Continental Shelf policy. But, again, you don't need to take my word for it. The U.S. Energy Information Administration put out a 2009 report comparing the difference between full, unrestricted offshore drilling and restricted offshore drilling. EIA found that in 2020, restrictions on drilling versus unrestricted access had no impact on cost. The cost per barrel was identical. In 2030, indiscriminate drilling would lower our gas prices by just 3 cents. Take the calls for drilling in the Arctic Refuge as another example. Even at peak production in 2030, Arctic Refuge oil would account for six-tenths of 1 percent of world oil production and only 2.4 percent of U.S. oil consumption. We can proactively move our Nation toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil so that we can take control of our energy future, protect our Nation, our economy, and our environment. And we must.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. On the first day of this Congress, Members took turns reading the Constitution aloud on the floor of this House. It was a worthwhile exercise. However, some parts were omitted. There was no recital of the Amendment that established prohibition or the clause requiring fugitive slaves to be returned to their owners, or the one equating slaves with three-fifths of a human being. I guess nobody wanted to be the one who was stuck reading those parts, and I can understand that. But it got me thinking that, lately, there has been a lot of talk about the Constitution, and that's a good thing. The Constitution is our national charter. It protects our basic freedoms, it grants power to the government, and puts limits on those powers. All of us in this body took an oath to support it. We should talk a lot about the Constitution, but we should talk about it the right way. Some of my colleagues here seem to think that all we have to do is read the Constitution together and we will all see the light; that the little words on the page will answer all of our questions. For them, the Framers had all the answers. I guess that's the real reason they didn't want to read the embarrassing parts out loud on the House floor. To do that would be to admit that the Framers got some things wrong, that their document was a first draft of liberty, a blueprint for justice, not the last word. Some call this way of thinking constitutional fundamentalism. When it comes to the Constitution, fundamentalism is misguided. Let me explain why. No one doubts that some parts of the Constitution are meant to be read literally and rigidly: every State gets two Senators. You have to be at least 25 years old to be elected to Congress. Cut and dried. But in many of the most important passages of the Constitution, the Framers deliberately used broad, open-ended language because they wanted their words to be read flexibly as times changed. Freedom of speech, due process of law--these terms don't define themselves. The Fourth Amendment protects the right of people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Eighth Amendment outlaws cruel and unusual punishment. What makes a search unreasonable or a punishment cruel? The document itself doesn't tell us. The constitutional fundamentalists tell us we should interpret the words of the Constitution as they were understood at the time they were written, more than 200 years ago, but they can't really mean that. At that time, all felonies were subject to the death penalty and flogging was a common punishment for crime. Today, we consider such punishments cruel and unusual. The words the Framers chose are not just broad and open-ended. More importantly, they express basic values. To enforce basic values, you need to make value judgments. And value judgments change as the world changes, even when the underlying values stay the same. The Supreme Court has always understood this. Almost 200 years ago, the great Chief Justice John Marshall made clear that the Court was going to read the broad phrases of the Constitution differently than it might read a tax statute or bailing code. Marshall wrote: ``If we apply this principle of construction to any of the powers of government, we shall find it so pernicious in its operation that we shall be compelled to discard it.'' Marshall and his successors on the High Court understood that when we freeze the meaning of the Constitution in place, we limit our capacity to make progress as a people. Progress hasn't come easy. It wasn't until the 1940s that the Court applied the First Amendment's establishment clause to State and local governments, ensuring the separation of church and State. It wasn't until the 1950s in Brown v. Board of Education that the Court declared government-sponsored racial segregation unconstitutional. Not until the 1960s did the Court finally represent the principle of one person, one vote. And not until the 1970s did the Court enforce constitutional equality for women. If we interpreted the document in a static and literal way, we would find ourselves in a country we didn't recognize. Constitutional fundamentalism makes difficult choices look easy by papering over the ambiguities of the document and ignoring the complexities of our history. I would much rather acknowledge the ambiguities and debate and discuss and argue about the complexities. I think it's significant that when we amend the Constitution, we don't redact the superseded parts. Leaving them in serves as an anecdote to collective amnesia about our past mistakes; it undermines efforts to sanitize our troubled history, as many in power throughout the world often do with their own history. I close with the words of Thomas Jefferson: ``Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable of taking care of itself, and ordering its own affairs.'' Thank you.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, on the 85th anniversary of its founding, I rise today to honor and recognize the outstanding impact that the Shriners Hospital for Children has had on the lives of children in Chicago. It is their mission to provide the highest quality health care to all children with orthopedic and neuromusculoskeletal conditions. The Shriners founded their first children's hospital in Shreveport, Louisiana in 1922, and since then, their network has grown to include 21 more hospitals. The Chicago facility was founded on March 20, 1926 in the historic Oak Park District. Here, children are treated for a host of orthopedic and neuromusculoskeletal conditions, spinal cord injuries, as well as cleft lip and palate. Not only do they provide for the needs of the children, the hospital takes into account the needs of the whole family throughout all phases of the child's injury and recuperation, including free transportation to and from the hospital if necessary. Once children are accepted for treatment, they become part of the Shriners Hospital System and are provided treatment for all facets of their condition. All care is provided by an interdisciplinary team which works together to integrate the expertise of all appropriate healthcare disciplines in one center. In addition to providing treatment for these conditions, all Shriners Hospitals for Children are dedicated to continuing research in their specific fields and discovering new knowledge to better improve the quality of the lives of their patients and their families. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the Shriners Hospital for Children in Chicago for its dedication to providing healthcare to suffering children without regard to religion, race, nationality, disability, or ability of the family to pay. This organization provides an invaluable service to the city and has improved the lives of countless Chicago children. I thank them once again for their 85 years of exceptional services to children in need and their families.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the legacy of Dr. Jose Rizal in celebration of the 150th anniversary of his birth on June 19, 1861. His writings and dedication to his country continue to inspire Filipinos, who widely regard him as the national hero of the Philippines. His allegiance to his homeland resonates with Filipino- Americans, and stirs a renewed patriotism in the hearts of all Americans. A doctor, philosopher, historian, and artist, Dr. Rizal is best known for his influential writings during the Philippine struggle for independence. Born in the Philippine province of Laguna in 1861, he traveled throughout the world for his studies and medical practice, earning degrees from universities in the Philippines and Europe. While studying in Spain in 1887, he wrote two novels, Noli Me Tangere and its sequel II Filibusterismo, depicting the Filipinos' devotion to their country and yearning for freedom from colonial rule. These works inspired the struggle for independence in the Philippines but also placed Rizal's life in danger of persecution by the ruling government. Eager to be of service to his country's cause, Dr. Rizal returned to the Philippines in 1892. Upon his return, he was exiled to the South of the Philippines. Despite great struggles, he sought to improve the lives of those around him by building a medical clinic, conducting religious classes, and teaching agricultural practices. Four years later, as the Philippine Revolution began to strengthen, he was convicted of inciting the rebellion with his writings and was sentenced to death. On the eve of his execution, Dr. Rizal wrote Mi Ultimo adios, a poem bidding farewell to his beloved country, attesting to his dedication to seeking a free and independent country. Dr. Rizal's legacy lives on in his writings, and Filipinos throughout the world remember him as the idealistic force behind their struggle for independence. He fought for his country not with the sword, but with the peaceful power of his ideas. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Dr. Jose Rizal. We remember his legacy in honor of the Filipino-Americans in our communities. May his legacy continue to instill in all of us a renewed dedication to serving our country.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1473, the continuing resolution for FY11. We cannot stand here, in good faith, and call this legislation a compromise. This bill includes a provision that will prohibit the District of Columbia from spending its own money to provide abortions to low-income women. D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray certainly wasn't at the table for this compromise. This bill includes a provision that would remove wolves from the endangered species list in Montana. This science-based decision, a decision that's central to the Endangered Species Act, is not a compromise for politicians to make. This bill includes a provision that guarantees Senate debate on healthcare repeal and defunding Planned Parenthood. And, this bill includes a provision that would block a funding increase for the IRS to hire additional agents for oversight and enforcement activities. I cannot stand here, in good faith, and support this legislation. I would be compromising my constituents' trust in my ability to represent their beliefs, their values and their best interests.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of more than 111,000 of my constituents who are of Polish descent, I rise to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl. We remember those in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, many of whom suffered the loss of life, health, and home as a result of this tragedy. The accident at the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl occurred on April 26, 1986, and is considered to be the most serious nuclear disaster in human history. A flawed reactor ruptured, causing a cloud of highly radioactive smoke to be spread over a wide geographic area. Unaware of the seriousness of the situation, firemen and emergency workers were summoned to the catastrophe. Many received high doses of radiation and later died as a result. The entire town of Pripyat was forced to evacuate, and, in total, it is believed that more than 200,000 people were forced to relocate due to the Chernobyl disaster. An area of more than 150,000 square kilometers is considered to be contaminated, and the immediate area around the plant is still, for the most part, uninhabited. This tragedy came at a huge human and environmental cost, and so it is of the utmost importance that it not be forgotten. For this reason, I would like to acknowledge the work of the Kyiv Committee of the Chicago Sister Cities International Program which is working to commemorate the anniversary of this tragedy through a program highlighting response and recovery efforts. Mr. Speaker, on this, the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl tragedy, I invite my colleagues to remember those who suffered as a result of this disaster, as well as recognize the efforts of the Chicago Sister Cities International Program. Only by commemorating and learning from this catastrophe will we able to move forward towards a safe and productive future for nuclear energy.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the thousands of Polish- American constituents residing in the 5th District of Illinois, I rise today in recognition of the 20th Anniversary of the Lajkonik Song and Dance Ensemble. For 20 successful years, the Lajkonik Song and Dance Ensemble has promoted Polish folk culture and history to constituents of Polish and non-Polish decent alike. Founded in 1991--under patronage of the Polish National Alliance Group 3241, and belonging to the Holy Trinity Polish Mission--Lajkonik has had the opportunity to flourish to an influential organization and cultural asset to the City of Chicago. The Lajkonik Ensemble has performed in various locations in Chicago; some include the Chicago Cultural Center, Taste of Chicago, Daley Plaza, Chicago Public Libraries and Millennium Park, among others. Additionally, Lajkonik has traveled the Midwest and also represented the Chicago Polish Community at the International Folk Dance Festival in Rzeszow, Poland on four occasions. Though the event focuses on Polish traditions, Lajkonik also reaches out to the American population to promote and encourage all people to learn about Polish culture, to support and appreciate it. The performances consist of different Polish regional folk songs, dances and colorful authentic Polish costumes. Sunday, May 29th, 2011 marks the 20th Anniversary of the Lajkonik Song and Dance Ensemble. All the community support and time volunteered by numerous individuals have made two decades possible and hopefully many more anniversaries to come. The 20th Anniversary celebration will be held at the Copernicus Cultural and Civic Center consisting of hundreds of children performing in a Gala Concert displaying regional costumes, folk dances, songs, and other performances. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize this exciting day on behalf of my 110,000 Polish American constituents. I congratulate all those who contributed their time and passion of preserving the Polish culture toward another successful celebration.

Mr. QUIGLEY

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

Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, my amendment would require that the GAO report to Congress the results of a study of health care costs in the U.S. as affected by the elimination of EPA regulation under this act. Further, the report would also detail health care costs in the U.S. proceeding under the EPA's current regulatory authority as determined in 2007 in Massachusetts v. EPA. It is science, hard facts, and figures that have led hundreds of scientists to confirm that global warming is real. Despite the other numbers you may have heard, the most convincing one is that there are over 200 peer reviewed scientific studies that have determined that global warming is real and that man contributes to that, and exactly zero that have proved or shown evidence to the contrary. It was science that led the Congress to pass the Clean Air Act, the act which designated the EPA as the body charged with overseeing, adapting, and implementing these regulations. It was science that led the Supreme Court to rule in 2007 that the Environmental Protection Agency does in fact have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. My amendment is simple. It directs the GAO to report the cost of health care under the Clean Air Act, and then to report the costs of health care with this bill passing as it modifies the amendment. In 2010 alone, the EPA reported the reduction in fine particulate and ozone pollution from the Clean Air Act prevented more than 160,000 premature deaths, 130,000 heart attacks, 13 million lost workdays, and 1.7 million asthma attacks. These are serious health issues that burden the government with serious bills. We face serious budgetary times. We may be out of a recession, but we are far from recovered. If we are committed to making the government more efficient and effective to cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, we must acknowledge that spending a smart dollar up front saves many dollars on the back end. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment that will allow the experts at the GAO to show us a world with the Clean Air Act and a world without. My estimation is that a world with less mercury in our water and less ozone in our air will cost far less in dollars and deaths than the opposite, but I will defer to the experts and look forward to their report on this subject. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, I guess my response is, with all due respect, prove me wrong. If there is no health care risk, let the GAO independent analysis prove us wrong. But there's a lot at stake here, and I would defy anyone to say that greenhouse gases are not in and of themselves--putting aside the issue of global warming--dangerous because many of them are precursors to ozone. I live in Chicago, which is the morbidity and mortality capital of the United States for people who are afflicted with asthma, and there is a dramatic and direct impact of what ozone does to those people suffering from asthma. So prove me wrong. Show me how we're wrong on this. Let there be a study which goes to this, because if I'm wrong, no damage done. But if there is some danger here and we have decided that it is not worth our study, then we have done a grave disservice to the American public and put their lives at risk. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today because in a few short days this body will consider an extreme and devastating anti-choice bill. H.R. 3 attempted to redefine rape, aims to ban private insurance coverage of reproductive health care, and imposes tax penalties on plans that include care. These unprecedented provisions have been widely debated, and it is my hope that the American people will realize the severity of this bill and that their Representatives will stop it. But my fear is throughout this debate, a dangerous provision of H.R. 3 has been overlooked, making permanent the Medicaid abortion ban, or the Hyde amendment. It is dangerous because if the extreme provisions are stripped out as a ``compromise,'' we are left with a ban that permanently bars poor women from accessing care, and we have still lost. Let's call the abortion ban what it really is: a ban on constitutionally protected health care that poor women cannot afford on their own. I encourage my colleagues to stand with poor women struggling to make ends meet around the Nation, in staunch opposition to any Medicaid abortion ban and H.R. 3.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, we spend a lot of time these days talking about costs--costs of regulation, costs of repeal, costs of implementation. Conveniently missing from this discussion are the human costs: lives lost, those altered by heart attacks, asthma, and brain damage due to fine particulate matter in our air and mercury in our water. My hometown of Chicago knows this all too well. Chicago ranks second of all cities in the country adversely affected by power plant pollution. Two particularly egregious emitters, the Fisk and Crawford power plants, emit fine particulate matter that directly contribute to 41 deaths, 550 ER visits, and 2,800 asthma attacks annually. EPA estimates that fine particle pollution from power plants shortens the lives of 1,356 people from my home State each year. Talk about costs. In 2001, the Harvard School of Public Health put out an Illinois power plant study. In the 8 years since these harms were modeled and publicized, the Environmental Law and Policy Center estimates the continued Fisk and Crawford coal plant pollution has caused from $750 million to $1 billion in health and environmental-related damages. Even if you don't care about global warming and you don't believe climate change is manmade, you can't argue with these numbers. So if you want to talk costs, let's talk costs. Fisk and Crawford power plants cost Chicagoans 550 ER visits per year. They cost Chicagoans 2,800 asthma attacks per year. And Fisk and Crawford power plants cost Chicagoans $750 million to $1 billion in only 8 of the 50 plus years we've been collecting data on these pollutants. The answer to these costs is not to repeal the law that cleans our air, that protects our children and allows us to remain competitive in a global market. The answer instead is to transition away from the antiquated and outdated industry that pollutes and toward green infrastructure that encourages domestic economic development. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and H.R. 910, the dirty air act.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the passing, but also honor the distinguished career of Herb Kawainui Kane. For more than 80 years, Mr. Kane exhibited a love for the arts and a passion for Hawaiian culture that has been an inspiration for his people. After leaving the Navy, Herb attended school in Illinois, where he would go on to earn his Masters degree from the University of Chicago. Herb went on to become a successful graphic artist in Chicago, before moving to Hawaii. There he would continue his career as an artist, and go on to become both a noted historian and an author. He went through life exemplifying hard work and dedication in his craft and culture. Throughout his career, Herb received praise and admiration for his works as an artist, historian, and author. Herb's paintings have graced such locations as the Hawaii State Foundation on Culture and the Arts and the National Park Service. In 2009, Herb helped design a commemorative stamp for the U.S. Postal Service, celebrating 50 years of Hawaii statehood. He has also been selected as a Living Treasure of Hawaii for his work as a historian and has received an award for excellence from The Hawaii Book Publishers Association for his writing. Herb's crowning achievement was his recreation of Polynesian canoes that were used by his ancestors. These canoes have been used to travel from Hawaii to various islands including, Tahiti, New Zealand, Easter Island, Tonga, The Marquesas Islands, The Cook Islands, Micronesia and Japan; of which the voyage to Japan totaled over 110,000 miles of navigation without modern equipment. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Herb Kane and his numerous accomplishments. His life and career has inspired many and will continue to influence generations to come.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, Colstrip, Montana, is home to the second largest coal plant west of the Mississippi. One boxcar-full of coal is burned every 5 minutes. The burning coal creates sodium, thallium, mercury, boron, aluminum, and arsenic, which is pumped out of the factory and into the air. The chemicals that are pumped into the air are caught in the factory's scrubbers and then dumped with coal ash into giant settling ponds. These ponds are shallow artificial lakes of concentrated toxicity which leach this poison into wells and aquifers. The sludge flows into the surrounding towns and countryside, bubbling up against foundations and floorings, cracking the floor in Colstrip's local grocery store. Ranchers in eastern Montana are now suing the plant for damages; noxious water, they cite, is the only liquid that fill their wells and stock ponds. James Jansen, a renowned climate scientist, says Colstrip itself will cause the extinction of 400 species. But Colstrip burns on. Why? Because we have no national energy plan, and because there are currently no Federal enforceable regulations specific to coal ash. This lack of federally enforceable safeguards is exactly what led to the disaster in Tennessee, where a dam holding more than 1 billion gallons of toxic coal ash failed. The TVA disaster destroyed 300 acres, dozens of homes, killed fish and other wildlife, and poisoned the Emory and Clinch Rivers. From Tennessee to Montana and across the Nation, the story is the same: We have no national conservation plan, no national energy policy, no regulatory enforcement authority. What is worse, today we are faced with a bill, H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which purports to protect citizens from taxation. In reality, this bill is a death sentence not only to our land, air, water, animals, and plants but to humans. This bill overturns proven scientific findings that carbon pollution endangers the health of Americans. It repeals the greenhouse gas reporting rule and removes the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to require energy efficiency at power plants and refineries. This bill simply says that science doesn't matter. I stand here today to refute that claim and, further, to protect the integrity of science. It is this science, these facts and figures, that have led hundreds of scientists to confirm that global warming is real. In fact, over 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies have found that global warming is real and that man contributes to it. To this date, zero peer-reviewed studies have found otherwise. It is this science that led the Supreme Court to rule that the Environmental Protection Agency does in fact have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and it is this science that led the Congress to pass the Clean Air Act, the act which designated the EPA as the body charged with overseeing, adapting, and implementing these regulations. In the coming months, EPA will begin regulating greenhouse gases from certain emitters for the first time. These regulations have become hugely controversial and, sadly, political. These rules seek to combat man-made climate change; man-made climate change that is melting our polar ice caps, that is raising the level of our oceans, and that is modifying our seasonal temperatures; man-made climate change that is altering the duration of our growing season, that is flooding part of the world and is causing multiyear droughts and others; man-made climate change that is allowing particulate matters to infiltrate our children's lungs, making them suffer from lifelong asthma and making us die earlier. And still, here we are, ignoring cries from health and medical professionals who have asked us, as Members of this body, to fulfill the promise of clean, healthy air for all Americans to breathe. Support full implementation of the Clean Air Act and resist any efforts to weaken, delay, or block progress toward a healthier future for all Americans. Ignoring requests from former senior military officials who wrote just last week, ``America's dependence on oil constitutes a clear and present danger to the security and welfare of the United States,'' and that, ``As former senior military officials, we are concerned about congressional efforts to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory authority that is critical to reducing our dependence on oil,'' Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford the costs of the Energy Tax Prevention Act: Lost and devastated ecosystems, lost jobs, and lost lives.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment serves no legitimate purpose and would only compromise our national security and put more Americans in harm's way. By barring the use of Federal funds to mandate Federal firearms dealers to report the sale of multiple long guns such as semiautomatic assault rifles, this amendment would undermine the Obama Administration's efforts to combat cross-border illegal gun trafficking. We must do everything we can to secure the border, strengthen our anti-gun-trafficking efforts, and help the Mexican Government fight the drug cartels. The Mexican drug cartels are killing people at a staggering rate-- more than 30,000 since 2006. And long guns are widely known as the cartels' weapon of choice. Some may shrug their shoulders and conclude this is just another problem beyond our reach. That would be a mistake. The drug cartels are getting their guns from the United States. Since 2006, the ATF has seized more than 10,000 firearms and nearly one million rounds of ammunition destined for Mexico, where the public is not allowed to purchase or possess guns. Authorities in Mexico say most of the guns used in police assassinations and cartel bloodshed originate in the United States and have pressed the U.S. to reduce the flow of weapons south. And this isn't just a border state problem. The impact of this trafficking is felt in my hometown of Chicago. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, Mexican drug trafficking organizations have infiltrated small and large cities in 48 U.S. States, affecting our national security. For example, Mexican drug cartels have a significant presence in Chicago, which Federal officials say is a key transfer point for drugs heading to Minnesota and points north and east. Last year, eleven alleged drug traffickers with connections to the Sinaloa Cartel were indicted by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago as part of ``Project Deliverance,''--a multi-state and agency effort to disrupt the flow of drugs and guns across the border. The drug cartel's violent war for control, which is fueled by illegal trafficking from the U.S. to Mexico, seriously impacts our public safety. The ATF's proposal to compel federal firearms dealers to report the sale of multiple long guns is not about gun control or compiling a registry of long gun owners. This is a law enforcement response to the evidence from successful tracings of weapons recovered in Mexico. Recent tracings show that a large number of these weapons were first sold by a licensed gun dealer in California, Arizona, New Mexico, or Texas. This amendment would undermine law enforcement's capacity to combat illegal gun trafficking and put Americans at even greater risk of gun violence. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to Amendment No. 273, offered by my colleague, Congressman King. This amendment's intent is to defund wage law requirements as established by the Davis-Bacon Act. Davis-Bacon doesn't just help the workers who build our country support their families; it also makes sure that taxpayers get their money's worth. The Davis-Bacon Act fosters competition based on quality, attracting workers who are more productive, more experienced, and well-trained. The Federal Government should not be the engine driving the ``race to the bottom'', and Davis-Bacon helps ensure that public projects do not facilitate low ball bids that undercut the American worker. Reports show that projects constructed with Davis-Bacon wage provisions are more likely to be completed on time, within budget, and with fewer future repair costs. Problems arise in projects when you have unskilled workers who are working at the lowest of wages and do not have benefits to support their families. Prevailing wage laws help ensure the best condition for workers, and employees respond by putting their best work forward, benefitting the community and the taxpayer. Elimination of the Davis-Bacon Act--which stabilizes wages, provides benefits to families, and promotes competition based on quality--would only foster an environment of low bidding, low wages, and poorer quality of work.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with an amendment that would, quite simply, allow the President to continue to consult an Advisor on Energy and Climate Change. Section 1535 of this bill, which forbids the President from hiring such an advisor, wouldn't save taxpayers a penny. Section 1535, which my amendment would strike, is a misguided attempt to tell the President who he can and cannot consult. Mr. Speaker, I ask you, would any member of this body allow us to deny them counsel on energy and climate issues? This is NOT a rhetorical question--every member of this body that employs a staffer on energy or climate issues should carefully consider whether they would deny the President that same counsel. Whether or not you agree with the President on energy and climate issues, I would ask you--is it appropriate to silence those with whom you disagree? I would also remind my colleagues that Section 1535 of this bill, which my amendment would strike, does not save taxpayers any money at all--not even a penny. All it does is deny the President the ability to consult with a certain type of advisor. Section 1535 is an unprecedented intrusion into the President's ability to retain and consult advisors on issues of national importance. And energy and climate change are issues of national importance. In light of recent catastrophes like the BP oil spill, ongoing efforts to prevent the EPA from doing its job, and rising rates of mortality and morbidity due to unhealthy air, land, and water--it is more important than ever that we support increased resources for the President and the Administration to do their job of keeping us, and our environment, safe and healthy. I've stood on this House floor many times, some of them in recent days, and talked about decreasing wasteful government spending. I've written whitepaper reports, both in Congress and while a Cook County Commissioner, detailing the importance of streamlining and reinventing government. But, the crux of those arguments is predicated on the fact that I believe that what the government does matters--that government's mission matters. What we do here today, and tomorrow, and the day after that, matters. But this CR, which combines ideologically driven cuts with pretend cuts, like Section 1535, is not the answer. Taking a sledgehammer to non-defense discretionary spending is not the answer. We've got to talk about what programs are working and support them at the same time we cut the ones that don't work. We're facing a climate crisis--a climate crisis that has become political and polarizing, pushing leaders into opposite corners of this debate. But the facts aren't a debate if they're based on science. And science says that for decades and centuries to come we're going to be dealing with rising temperatures, acidic oceans, extinct species, and skyrocketing healthcare costs due to dirty air. In these trying times, we're trying to tell the President of the United States he doesn't have the right to counsel on energy and climate change? With all due respect, Section 1535 is an unserious attempt to achieve some measure of fiscal responsibility. But the truth is, it hacks away at the constitutional separation of powers and doesn't save taxpayers any money at all. How we address energy and climate change issues will matter for our children, and our children's children. We must not hamstring our ability to do so. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished career of Dr. Michael Collins. For more than 25 years, he has exhibited a drive and work ethic on and off the ice that serves as inspiration to his colleagues and friends. Dr. Collins, a Chicago native, attended the University of Notre Dame. In South Bend he played varsity hockey and shoveled furnaces to pay the bills, but still graduated in three and a half years. Upon graduation, Michael spent several years driving a cab, and working construction before entering medicine. After returning to college for another two years to take pre-med courses, he attended the Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine followed by five years at the Mayo Clinic. He is now a full-time, board-certified orthopedic surgeon. In addition to his medical practice, he has written professionally for more than 30 years. His first book, Hot Lights, Cold Steel, continues to be a best-seller in the medical memoir field. Since its publication, Michael has lectured extensively on topics relating to medicine and writing. Dr. Collins' hard work and accomplishments have earned him national attention, and in 2010 he received the American Hockey Coaches Association Lou Lamoriello Award. The Lamoriello Award recognizes a former college hockey player or coach who goes on to a distinguished career in or out of hockey. Michael and his wife, Patti, have raised 12 children and today he still plays hockey twice a week. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Michael Collins and his life of achievement. His career has inspired many and continues to impress.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Stearns, an amendment which seeks to hamstring the EPA's ability to do its job. A job which Congress determined was the responsibility of the EPA. A job which the Supreme Court ruled was the responsibility of the EPA. And, a job, which is necessary to save thousands of lives, and millions in healthcare costs. Contrary to what some of my colleagues have been saying on the House floor, Americans support the mission of the EPA. Americans also support the tenets of the Clean Air Act. Recently, polls have been conducted in Congressional districts across the country, in districts that are home to coal and power plants, that are in the heart of steel towns and industry. When questioned, 60 and 70 percent of people in these districts answered with a resounding, ``yes, the EPA can and should do more to hold polluters accountable and to protect our land, air and water.'' Those same folks did not support Congress deciding how those rules should be promulgated, as this amendment strives to do. There's a reason that rules are written by agencies--they've got the resources, and the knowledge, to write regulations that will do what's best for American citizens and communities. Our job is to support these rules. I stand here in support of the EPA, the EPA's ability to regulate coal combustion wastes and against the proposed amendment. Our lives depend on it.

Mr. QUIGLEY

Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, I rise today to support the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from New York (Mrs. Lowey). This amendment would restore vital funding to the title X family planning program. Now, I am all for reducing our deficit and for getting our fiscal house in order, but let's be clear on something: this cut to title X will not save money. The proponents of eliminating family planning funds want us to believe that cutting these funds is fiscally responsible and that it has to be done to balance our budget. What they don't want us to know is that investing in family planning actually saves money. For every public dollar invested in family planning, taxpayers saved nearly $4. So while cutting family planning appears to be a savings up front, over the long run it will cost us both in dollars and in the health and well-being of millions of women. While we are being honest, let's also discuss the other motive of the proponents of cutting title X. They argue that cutting funds for family planning will reduce abortions. Once again, they are wrong. In fact, if they wanted to reduce abortions, they would increase funding for title X. Why? Because title X services prevent nearly 1 million unintended pregnancies each year, almost half of which would otherwise end in abortion. If we want to get serious about cutting Federal spending and reducing abortions, a good start would be investing in title X, not eliminating it, which is exactly what this amendment will do. Of course, in addition to reducing unintended pregnancies and saving taxpayers' money, family planning providers, like Planned Parenthood, provide essential life-saving and preventative care. In 2009, title X providers performed 2.3 million breast exams, 2.2 million Pap tests, over 6 million tests for STIs, and close to 1 million HIV tests. For six out of 10 women who receive care from women's health centers, this is their only source of health care. Eliminating all funds for family planning would cut millions of women off from their primary and, in many cases, their only source of health care. To the millions of women out there who want comprehensive reproductive health care: this is what they think of you. They think that women should not have access to basic reproductive health care, including birth control. Recent legislation revealed that they think you shouldn't be able to access care even if you are a victim of rape or incest. This is what they think of you. All these bills reveal the true mindset of the opponents of choice: women are not capable of making their own decisions about their own health and their own lives. These cuts to family planning programs would have a devastating impact in my community. Ten Planned Parenthood health centers in Illinois that provide primary and preventive care, including flu vaccines, diabetes screening, and cholesterol screening would all be forced to close. This would affect approximately 30,000 low-income patients and eliminate the jobs of 200 health center workers. Not exactly the kind of job-stimulating legislation we should be focusing on. The conversation we're having today is not about choice, but choices. With family planning, we can reduce abortions and save the Federal Government money; without, we only pretend to do either. With family planning we can embrace educating and providing health care to women; without, we abandon women when they need care the most. With family planning, we can empower the women of America; without, we undermine them. We have the choice. And we must choose to stand up to these attacks and fight back against the mistruths because the health, well-being, and lives of millions of women and their families are at stake. This amendment is a strike against these wrongheaded cuts to family planning. I encourage my colleagues to restore funding to title X family planning programs and vote ``yes'' on Mrs. Lowey's amendment.