John Shimkus

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight the importance of September 26, which the Illinois House of Representatives has declared as Mesothelioma Awareness Day. According to the National Cancer Institute, about 2,000 cases of mesothelioma are diagnosed each year in the United States. Understanding that diagnosing mesothelioma is often difficult and could be years and years after exposure, a biopsy is required to make a confirmation. This means that many people may go without proper diagnosis and medical care. Research is being conducted, funded by the National Cancer Institute, pharmaceutical companies, and the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation. The Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation is the beneficiary of a fundraiser on September 26 in Alton, Illinois--the Miles for Meso 5K. I want to congratulate the law firm of Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd, the many volunteers who put together Miles for Meso, and all the participants in the 5K run and walk. The Simmons firm and its employees and John and Jane Simmons personally have shown their commitment to the region as evident in their efforts at Miles for Meso and through many other community service projects and donations.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. I will be brief, my colleagues and friends. You see the trophy here, it's in the middle of the Chamber because this is one of the events where it's a bipartisan game. Last night, the Members of Congress defeated a team from the American League of Lobbyists in the 11th annual Hoops for Hope charity basketball game. After being pummeled last year, we came roaring back with a surprising 52-39 win. This could not have been possible without the assistance of my co-captain, Brad Ellsworth, and Members Jeff Flake, Frank Kratovil, Todd Tiahrt, Mike Arcuri, John Boccieri, and Member emeritus Kenny Hulshof. I want to thank Visitation High School in Georgetown for their support, winning coach John Thompson from Georgetown, Coach Karl Hobbs from George Washington, Dave Johnson, who is a radio play-by-play announcer from WTOP, and the American League of Lobbyists, especially Paul Miller and Dave Weingold. Over the 11 years of this charity event, we have raised over $400,000 in money going to Horton's Kids, Servant Christian Community Foundation, St. Anthony's Scholarship Fund, Washington Jesuit Academy, and the Luke Tiahrt Foundation. I want to thank my colleagues for their support. Lobbyist Team 1 Coach: Keith Urgo, Asst. Head Coach, Villanova University Jess Peterson, Western Skies Strategies Jack Kelly, American Trucking Assn. Josh Brown, CBS Paul Kanitra, Carfax Stephanie Holland, Squadra Films Antonio Payne, IOPFDA Casey Dinges, ASCE Ray Bucheger, Friedman, Beaubien, Bucheger Federal Relations Brian Wagner, ATK Chaka Burgess, Amgen Jesse Kerns, Amgen Melissa Shannon, Kountoupes Consulting Lobbyist Team 2 Jim Martin, 60 Plus Brad Knox, AFLAC Bill Johnson, ATK Booth Jameson, HP Dan Cohen, ? Danny Leonard, The Leonard Group Monte Ward, Advanced Capitol Consulting Brian Pallasch, ASCE Paxton Baker, BET J Michael Meehan, Blue Line Strategic Communications Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the actions of Mr. Tom King of Saint Jacob, Illinois. Mr. King rode his bicycle halfway across the United States to commemorate the life of Caleb Zarzecki, a former student who lost his battle with cancer last year. King, a teacher at Collinsville Middle School, described his ride as ``a journey of faith and healing.'' The cross-country journey raised funds for a scholarship established in Caleb Zarzecki's name. Mr. King started his journey on June 26 in Seattle, Washington, and traveled more than 2,000 miles to his home in Saint Jacob, Illinois. He rode 40 to 60 miles every day, sleeping at local campgrounds and churches in Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri and finally Illinois. Mr. King's actions exemplify a teacher's devotion to his students. It is my hope that this model of dedication may inspire us all. As we honor Mr. King, I extend my heartfelt thoughts and prayers to the family of Caleb Zarzecki.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my most sincere condolence to the family, friends and colleagues of Norman E. Borlaug-- the Father of ``Green Revolution.'' Dr. Norman Borlaug applied scientific innovation, compassion for the poor and expert knowledge of agricultural practices to develop and introduce groundbreaking technologies that will forever change the prospects of the hungry and impoverished around the globe. Borlaug's development of high-yield and disease-resistant wheat varieties bore results in Mexico, Pakistan and India that stretched the imagination of viable agriculture in developing countries. Recently, Borlaug worked to apply farming practices and methods of increasing food production to Asia and Africa and has continued to advocate the use of biotechnology to combat world famine. World leaders will honor and continue his legacy by further applying his practices and technologies to future agriculture and food production. Dr. Borlaug has been an example for so many of us who see the hope and promise the science of biotechnology holds. Farmers who can produce greater yields with less through agriculture biotechnology applications

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and will just close briefly by saying this is good to see on the floor. We did take a very difficult issue, one that has been languishing for 21 years, and worked with young Members and new Members, like Adam Putnam, and with the distinguished Chairman Emeritus Dingell, and got into a room and moved a bill that has the support of almost everybody in the food processing and agriculture community and the marketing of this. I have sat in numerous hearings, as I said in my opening statement, and every time we would have an oversight investigation hearing there would be an alert of another food-borne illness, and we just knew we couldn't continue down that route. As my colleague Mr. Putnam said, it is going to be helpful to the farmers. It is going to be helpful to the processors when we bring some more security and safety and knowledge that we continue to produce the best food supply in the world. It also will help us with the imported products, and that was a big issue in our debate. So, with that, this has worked well. We should try this bipartisan method on things like energy and things like health, and maybe we will get there in months to come, I hope, because this is a much better process than us fighting altogether. With that, again, I thank Chairman Emeritus Dingell, who really led the way for us to get to where we are today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any additional speakers. I reserve my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to my colleague, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize my colleagues Mr. Putnam and Mr. Costa for their bill, the Safe FEAST Act, which I was an original cosponsor on, which got rolled into this bill, and it was of great help when they did that. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), who is ranking member on the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was a member of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee in the last Congress, serving 10 or 12 months in that position. And every time we had a hearing on some unsafe food product, another outbreak would occur. So we knew that we really had to get our heads together and try to address food-safety issues, and we think we've done that with this bill. I want to thank Chairman Emeritus Dingell and I want to thank Chairman Waxman, Chairman Pallone and Chairman Stupak for working with Ranking Member Barton and Deal and myself to really move the bill forward in a way that we could pass it on a voice vote. I just only wish--and I think we could do this, we could do this on energy and we could do this on health if we really sat down and tried to work out the differences. This is not an easy bill to pass. And as Chairman Emeritus Dingell said, 21 years he has been working on this. And this is not an easy thing to do. We did all we could. And I do appreciate the time that we spent on the floor and then with staff to work out the difficult options. And so we come here today with a pretty united bill, one that would have passed had it not been on the suspension calendar, and so we bring it up again today. We have to have confidence in our food supply, and that's what we're trying to do in this bill. And this bill takes the necessary steps to move us forward. The changes that we have made not just in the original text of the bill, but in addressing some of the concerns we think are very, very helpful. And I want to pledge to my ag Republican friends--and I'm from an agricultural district, and a lot of these groups that support them are good friends of mine. And we want to ensure that we continue to work forward and move forward as the bill does. A couple of issues that Chairman Emeritus Dingell said was, you know, the bill does not require farms to register with FDA, and as a result farms do not have to pay a registration fee. Access to farm records is significantly restricted. Livestock and poultry are exempt from the bill. Grain and related commodities are exempt from produce standards. USDA regulated farms, facilities, and products are not subject to the bill. It allows farms to be exempt from the traceability requirements. We, as a committee, both in the Oversight and Investigation and then as a full committee, we just couldn't sit on the sidelines anymore as we saw case after case of food-borne illnesses. We had to come together in a way to address this. I think we have done it. I think it's a good product. Can there be some fixes as it moves forward? Yes, there can. But I would ask all my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. I also want to thank Chairman Waxman for mentioning Chris Sarley, who did yeoman's work with the majority staff, and I appreciate their kindness and work effort. This is a model for what we can do on energy and what we can do on health if we would move in that direction. We can't defend the current system. As a former ranking member on Oversight and Investigations, there are fixes that have to be made. This bill provides a risk-based inspection regime and gives the FDA flexibility to change the frequency of inspections to lower-risk facilities. It allows FDA access to records. It gives companies flexibility to use different preventative control systems. And where things are working, we let existing authority remain with respect to USDA. I am an ag Republican, so I understand the concerns of my colleagues on the Ag Committee. But this bill does not require farms to register with the FDA; and as a result, farms do not have to pay a registration fee. Access to farm records is significantly restricted. Livestock and poultry are exempt from the bill. Grain and related commodities are exempt from produce standards. USDA-regulated farms, facilities and products are not subject to this bill. It allows farms to be exempt from any traceability requirements. But I will pledge to continue to work with any ag Republican colleagues as this process moves forward to try to address some of the remaining concerns. I do appreciate the majority and their work on this. Again, I think it is a good method for which we can move on energy and health care when we get to a point where we want to do that.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Emeritus Dingell for his work on this bill. I also want to thank Chairman Waxman.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, as we spin in circles here on health care, let's not forget the failed policy of a national energy tax, or cap- and-trade. These coal miners lost their jobs the last time we passed environmental laws, and with their jobs went their health care benefits. I've always said that cap-and-tax is a direct attack on coal by the environmental left. And if you don't believe me, yesterday's article says Sierra Club opposes transmission lines to link AEP to Allegheny coal fire power plants on the grounds that it would increase coal use. I also say that cap-and-tax is all pain and no gain, especially if China and India do not comply. Well, we also have a quote by Rajendra Pachauri, who is the Chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And he says: ``India will continue to use coal to meet its energy demands.'' And finally, the science of climate change is not exact and not conclusive. Channel 2, CBS Chicago, says that Chicago sees coldest July in 67 years.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, 90 percent of all Americans have health insurance, the majority of whom like their plans. The Democrat bill, as drawn out, does a couple of things. First of all, it doesn't keep the President's promise. The President promises that, if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it, but as stated earlier on pages 16 and 17 of the bill, you're not going to be able to do that. The other thing is the plan was to lower the cost curb, but the CBO testified that the costs for both plans go up. The cost for the private insurance plan goes up. The cost for the public option goes up. A public option will undercut private insurance, driving people into a public plan. Now, in countries that have one public insurance plan, the only way they control costs is by rationing care. If you don't trust me, just ask the Canadians, the Brits, the folks in New Zealand, and in Australia where you have a bureaucrat deciding whether you get the care you need or not. This is not the type of plan we want. We want to maintain the doctor-patient relationship.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the 2010 Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill. Requesting Member: John M. Shimkus Bill: 2010 Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill The Account: Higher Education (including FIPSE)--Lincoln Land CC Requesting Entity: Lincoln Land Community College at 5250 Shepherd Rd. Springfield, IL 62794. The funding will be for the LLCC HIRE Education Program to allow for pre apprenticeship training in energy production fields and construction trades to meet regional demand. The Account: Higher Education (including FIPSE)--Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Requesting Entity: Southern Illinois University Edwardsville is located in Edwardsville, IL 62026. The funding will be for a high tech simulation laboratory for advance practice nursing students to help address a nationwide nursing shortage. The Account: Administration for Children and Families (ACF)--Social Services--The Hope Institute for Children and Families Requesting Entity: The Hope Institute 15 E. Hazel Dell Lane Springfield, IL 62712 The funding will be for equipment, for training and a conference center, and dental clinic at the Children's Healthcare Partnership, Noll Medical Pavilion. The Account: Innovation and Improvement--Reading is Fundamental Requesting Entity: The point of contact for Reading Is Fundamental is Stephen Leach and the address is 1825 Connecticut Ave. NW Washington, DC 20009. The funding would be used for purposes authorized in Section 5451 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Account: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-- Health Facilities and Services--Hamilton Memorial Hospital Requesting Entity: Hamilton Memorial Hospital is located at 611 S. Marshall McLeansboro, IL 62859. Hamilton Memorial serves a very poor, rural area of Illinois and is in need of capital to convert this EMR project to better serve their patients. The funding will be to assist electronic file management and forms, computerized physician order entry, and a new HIS server to support electronic file conversions.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill. Requesting Member: John M. Shimkus Bill number: H.R. 3288 The Account: Surface Transportation Priorities--Edwards County Bone Gap Road Requesting Entity: Edwards County located at Edwards County Courthouse, Alboin IL 62806. The funding will go towards the reconstruct Bone Gap Rd in Edwards County. The Account: Transportation & Community & System Preservation-- Harrisburg Missouri Street Hospital Access Project. Requesting Entity: City of Harrisburg at 110 East Locust Harrisburg, IL 62946. The funding will go towards construction of a secondary access route to Harrisburg Medical Center that was inaccessible during floods of 2008.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor humbly as a fourth- generation immigrant family of Lithuania. Of course, I, like many Americans today, are really a Heinz 57 mutt, also having German ancestry and Irish ancestry, and we think some American Indian ancestry. But ``Shimkus'' is ethnically Lithuanian. So I always kid and joke that it's only in Washington, D.C., that you automatically become an expert in a region of the world based upon the ethnicity of your last name. But it's a labor of love that I've taken, and, hence, I bring this resolution to the floor to place Lithuania in the spotlight. Before I do that, I want to read a letter from three friends and former leaders of the Baltic countries and 22 total leaders: Valdas Adamkus, a former President of the Republic of Lithuania; Vaira Vike- Freiberga, former President of the Republic of Latvia; and Mart Laar, who is the former Prime Minister of Estonia. I'm not going to read the whole letter. I'm going to highlight a few sections, and then I'm going to transition to state why resolutions like this are important, because sometimes we go, Oh, why do we do these resolutions? I think the letter that they have written highlights the importance of us continuing to mention our friends and allies and talk about the strengths of the relationships. This letter is about three pages long, but I just highlight a few short snippets in each one. Again, these are 22 leaders of not just the Baltic areas, but the Central and Eastern European democracies. Most of these are now no longer in public service but are former leaders. They say, ``Twenty years after the end of the cold war, however, we see that Central and Eastern European countries are no longer at the heart of American foreign policy.'' ``Americans have largely stopped worrying about. . .'' Now, that's positive about some of our successes, but it also raises concerns. ``There is a growing sense of nervousness in the region.'' ``NATO today seems weaker than when we joined.'' They also say, ``The region's deeper integration in the EU is of course welcome and should not necessarily lead to a weakening of the transatlantic relationship.'' Also stated is ``there are fewer and fewer leaders who emerged from the revolutions of 1989 who experienced Washington's key role in securing our democratic transition and anchoring our countries in NATO and EU. A new generation of leaders is emerging who do not have those memories and follow a more `realistic' policy.'' I think that's important for us to understand. These countries fought for freedom, but the leaders who fought for freedom are now leaving power. And this new generation needs to be reminded of the strength of the U.S. relationship to the former captive nations from the Eastern European countries. They also, in here, talk about, ``We welcome the `reset' '' . . . ``but there is also nervousness in our capitals.'' ``Our region suffered when the United States succumbed to `realism' at Yalta. And it benefited when the United States used its power to fight for principle.'' And that's what I hope we continue to do. ``We believe this is a time both the United States and Europe need to reinvest in the transatlantic relationship.'' So I appreciate the committee allowing the resolution to come to the floor because this is another way in which we can talk about the important relationship that we have. The resolution, itself, talks about the 1,000 years which they're celebrating in Lithuania, the 1,000 years when the name Lithuania first appeared in written documents. Lithuania was around before that, but that makes us look like little kids here in the United States; hence, the world is much older than our great Constitutional Republic. There's a lot of ``whereas'' in the resolution. Whereas, under the cover of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, on June 17, 1940, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania were forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union in violation of preexisting peace treaties. Another whereas: Lithuania is a full and responsible member of the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Union, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Full partners--full voting partners and full participants in the defense organization known as NATO and the article 5 guarantee to both themselves and other NATO countries. Another whereas: As contributing to international civilian and military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Georgia, which are all important aspects that they have stepped up to the plate to be part of this commitment to securing democracy and freedom in the war on terror. So we, as a country, get a chance, through this resolution, to congratulate the people of the Republic of Lithuania for this historical timeframe. We commend the Government of Lithuania for their commitment to democracy, freedom, the rule of law, and being allies in the campaigns that we, in connection with our treaty obligations and the greatest organization that's kept peace and stability that the world has known, which is NATO, their role in that. And we want to continue to recognize that this relationship is strong now and we will do all we can in our part to make it strong in the future. I think my colleague from Florida mentioned, also, challenges that we've addressed, and we will continue to work on those so that our relationship becomes stronger in a world where democracy and freedom needs to flourish for people to live the lifestyles that they will grow and flourish individually. I thank the committee for allowing this to the floor, and I thank Congressman Smith for allowing me this time. An Open Letter to the Obama Administration From Central and Eastern Europe We have written this letter because, as Central and Eastern European (CEE) intellectuals and former policymakers, we care deeply about the future of the transatlantic relationship as well as the future quality of relations between the United States and the countries of our region. We write in our personal capacity as individuals who are friends and allies of the United States as well as committed Europeans. Our nations are deeply indebted to the United States. Many of us know firsthand how important your support for our freedom and independence was during the dark Cold War years. U.S. engagement and support was essential for the success of our democratic transitions after the Iron Curtain fell twenty years ago. Without Washington's vision and leadership, it is doubtful that we would be in NATO and even the EU today. We have worked to reciprocate and make this relationship a two-way street. We are Atlanticist voices within NATO and the EU. Our nations have been engaged alongside the United States in the Balkans, Iraq, and today in Afghanistan. While our contribution may at times seem modest compared to your own, it is significant when measured as a percentage of our population and GDP. Having benefited from your support for liberal democracy and liberal values in the past, we have been among your strongest supporters when it comes to promoting democracy and human rights around the world. Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, however, we see that Central and Eastern European countries are no longer at the heart of American foreign policy. As the new Obama Administration sets its foreign-policy priorities, our region is one part of the world that Americans have largely stopped worrying about. Indeed, at times we have the impression that U.S. policy was so successful that many American officials have now concluded that our region is fixed once and for all and that they could ``check the box'' and move on to other more pressing strategic issues. Relations have been so close that many on both sides assume that the region's transatlantic orientation, as well as its stability and prosperity, would last forever. That view is premature. All is not well either in our region or in the transatlantic relationship. Central and Eastern Europe is at a political crossroads and today there is a growing sense of nervousness in the region. The global economic crisis is impacting on our region and, as elsewhere, runs the risk that our societies will look inward and be less engaged with the outside world. At the same time, storm clouds are starting to gather on the foreign policy horizon. Like you, we await the results of the EU Commission's investigation on the origins of the Russo-Georgian war. But the political impact of that war on the region has already been felt. Many countries were deeply disturbed to see the Atlantic alliance stand by as Russia violated the core principles of the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris, and the territorial integrity of a country that was a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace and the Euroatlantic Partnership Council--all in the name of defending a sphere of influence on its borders. Despite the efforts and significant contribution of the new members, NATO today seems weaker than when we joined. In many of our countries it is perceived as less and less relevant-- and we feel it. Although we are full members, people question whether NATO would be willing and able to come to our defense in some future crises. Europe's dependence on Russian energy also creates concern about the cohesion of the Alliance. President Obama's remark at the recent NATO summit on the need to provide credible defense plans for all Alliance members was welcome, but not sufficient to allay fears about the Alliance's defense readiness. Our ability to continue to sustain public support at home for our contributions to Alliance missions abroad also depends on us being able to show that our own security concerns are being addressed in NATO and close cooperation with the United States. We must also recognize that America's popularity and influence have fallen in many of our countries as well. Public opinions polls, including the German Marshall Fund's own Transatlantic Trends survey, show that our region has not been immune to the wave of criticism and anti-Americanism that has swept Europe in recent years and which led to a collapse in sympathy and support for the United States during the Bush years. Some leaders in the region have paid a political price for their support of the unpopular war in Iraq. In the future they may be more careful in taking political risks to support the United States. We believe that the onset of a new Administration has created a new opening to reverse this trend but it will take time and work on both sides to make up for what we have lost. In many ways the EU has become the major factor and institution in our lives. To many people it seems more relevant and important today than the link to the United States. To some degree it is a logical outcome of the integration of Central and Eastern Europe into the EU. Our leaders and officials spend much more time in EU meetings than in consultations with Washington, where they often struggle to attract attention or make our voices heard. The region's deeper integration in the EU is of course welcome and should not necessarily lead to a weakening of the transatlantic relationship. The hope was that integration of Central and Eastern Europe into the EU would actually strengthen the strategic cooperation between Europe and America. However, there is a danger that instead of being a pro- Atlantic voice in the EU, support for a more global partnership with Washington in the region might wane over time. The region does not have the tradition of assuming a more global role. Some items on the transatlantic agenda, such as climate change, do not resonate in the Central and Eastern European publics to the same extent as they do in Western Europe. Leadership change is also coming in Central and Eastern Europe. Next to those, there are fewer and fewer leaders who emerged from the revolutions of 1989 who experienced Washington's key role in securing our democratic transition and anchoring our countries in NATO and EU. A new generation of leaders is emerging who do not have these memories and follow a more ``realistic'' policy. At the same time, the former Communist elites, whose insistence on political and economic power significantly contributed to the crises in many CEE countries, gradually disappear from the political scene. The current political and economic turmoil and the fallout from the global economic crisis provide additional opportunities for the forces of nationalism, extremism, populism, and anti-Semitism across the continent but also in some our countries. This means that the United States is likely to lose many of its traditional interlocutors in the region. The new elites replacing them may not share the idealism--or have the same relationship to the United States--as the generation who led the democratic transition. They may be more calculating in their support of the United States as well as more parochial in their world view. And in Washington a similar transition is taking place as many of the leaders and personalities we have worked with and relied on are also leaving politics. And then there is the issue of how to deal with Russia, Our hopes that relations with Russia would improve and that Moscow would finally fully accept our complete sovereignty and independence after joining NATO and the EU have not been fulfilled. Instead, Russia is back as a revisionist power pursuing a 19th-century agenda with 21st-century tactics and methods. At a global level, Russia has become, on most issues, a status-quo power. But at a regional level and vis- a-vis our nations, it increasingly acts as a revisionist one. It challenges our claims to our own historical experiences. It asserts a privileged position in determining our security choices. It uses overt and covert means of economic warfare, ranging from energy blockades and politically motivated investments to bribery and media manipulation in order to advance its interests and to challenge the transatlantic orientation of Central and Eastern Europe. We welcome the ``reset'' of the American-Russian relations. As the countries living closest to Russia, obviously nobody has a greater interest in the development of the democracy in Russia and better relations between Moscow and the West than we do. But there is also nervousness in our capitals. We want to ensure that too narrow an understanding of Western interests does not lead to the wrong concessions to Russia. Today the concern is, for example, that the United States and the major European powers might embrace the Medvedev plan for a ``Concert of Powers'' to replace the continent's existing, value-based security structure. The danger is that Russia's creeping intimidation and influence-peddling in the region could over time lead to a de facto neutralization of the region. There are differing views within the region when it comes to Moscow's new policies. But there is a shared view that the full engagement of the United States is needed. Many in the region are looking with hope to the Obama Administration to restore the Atlantic relationship as a moral compass for their domestic as well as foreign policies. A strong commitment to common liberal democratic values is essential to our countries. We know from our own historical experience the difference between when the United States stood up for its liberal democratic values and when it did not. Our region suffered when the United States succumbed to ``realism'' at Yalta. And it benefited when the United States used its power to fight for principle. That was critical during the Cold War and in opening the doors of NATO. Had a ``realist'' view prevailed in the early 1990s, we would not be in NATO today and the idea of a Europe whole, free, and at peace would be a distant dream. We understand the heavy demands on your Administration and on U.S. foreign policy. It is not our intent to add to the list of problems you face. Rather, we want to help by being strong Atlanticist allies in a U.S.-European partnership that is a powerful force for good around the world. But we are not certain where our region will be in five or ten years time given the domestic and foreign policy uncertainties we face. We need to take the right steps now to ensure the strong relationship between the United States and Central and Eastern Europe over the past twenty years will endure. We believe this is a time both the United States and Europe need to reinvest in the transatlantic relationship. We also believe this is a time when the United States and Central and Eastern Europe must reconnect around a new and forward- looking agenda. While recognizing what has been achieved in the twenty years since the fall of the Iron Curtain, it is time to set a new agenda for close cooperation for the next twenty years across the Atlantic. Therefore, we propose the following steps: First, we are convinced that America needs Europe and that Europe needs the United States as much today as in the past. The United States should reaffirm its vocation as a European power and make clear that it plans to stay fully engaged on the continent even while it faces the pressing challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the wider Middle East, and Asia. For our part we must work at home in our own countries and in Europe more generally to convince our leaders and societies to adopt a more global perspective and be prepared to shoulder more responsibility in partnership with the United States. Second, we need a renaissance of NATO as the most important security link between the United States and Europe. It is the only credible hard power security guarantee we have. NATO must reconfirm its core function of collective defense even while we adapt to the new threats of the 21st century. A key factor in our ability to participate in NATO's expeditionary missions overseas is the belief that we are secure at home. We must therefore correct some self-inflicted wounds from the past. It was a mistake not to commence with proper Article 5 defense planning for new members after NATO was enlarged. NATO needs to make the Alliance's commitments credible and provide strategic reassurance to all members. This should include contingency planning, prepositioning of forces, equipment, and supplies for reinforcement in our region in case of crisis as originally envisioned in the NATO-Russia Founding Act. We should also re-think the working of the NATO-Russia Council and return to the practice where NATO member countries enter into dialogue with Moscow with a coordinated position. When it comes to Russia, our experience has been that a more determined and principled policy toward Moscow will not only strengthen the West's security but will ultimately lead Moscow to follow a more cooperative policy as well. Furthermore, the more secure we feel inside NATO, the easier it will also be for our countries to reach out to engage Moscow on issues of common interest. That is the dual track approach we need and which should be reflected in the new NATO strategic concept. Third, the thorniest issue may well be America's planned missile-defense installations. Here too, there are different views in the region, including among our publics which are divided. Regardless of the military merits of this scheme and what Washington eventually decides to do, the issue has nevertheless also become--at least in some countries--a symbol of America's credibility and commitment to the region. How it is handled could have a significant impact on their future transatlantic orientation. The small number of missiles involved cannot be a threat to Russia's strategic capabilities, and the Kremlin knows this. We should decide the future of the program as allies and based on the strategic plusses and minuses of the different technical and political configurations. The Alliance should not allow the issue to be determined by unfounded Russian opposition. Abandoning the program entirely or involving Russia too deeply in it without consulting Poland or the Czech Republic can undermine the credibility of the United States across the whole region. Fourth, we know that NATO alone is not enough. We also want and need more Europe and a better and more strategic U.S.-EU relationship as well. Increasingly our foreign policies are carried out through the European Union--and we support that. We also want a common European foreign and defense policy that is open to close cooperation with the United States. We are the advocates of such a line in the EU. But we need the United States to rethink its attitude toward the EU and engage it much more seriously as a strategic partner. We need to bring NATO and the EU closer together and make them work in tandem. We need common NATO and EU strategies not only toward Russia but on a range of other new strategic challenges. Fifth is energy security. The threat to energy supplies can exert an immediate influence on our nations' political sovereignty also as allies contributing to common decisions in NATO. That is why it must also become a transatlantic priority. Although most of the responsibility for energy security lies within the realm of the EU, the United States also has a role to play. Absent American support, the Baku- Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline would never have been built. Energy security must become an integral part of U.S.-European strategic cooperation. Central and Eastern European countries should lobby harder (and with more unity) inside Europe for diversification of the energy mix, suppliers, and transit routes, as well as for tough legal scrutiny of Russia's abuse of its monopoly and cartel-like power inside the EU. But American political support on this will play a crucial role. Similarly, the United States can play an important role in solidifying further its support for the Nabucco pipeline, particularly in using its security relationship with the main transit country, Turkey, as well as the North-South interconnector of Central Europe and LNG terminals in our region. Sixth, we must not neglect the human factor. Our next generations need to get to know each other, too. We have to cherish and protect the multitude of educational, professional, and other networks and friendships that underpin our friendship and alliance. The U.S. visa regime remains an obstacle in this regard. It is absurd that Poland and Romania--arguably the two biggest and most pro-American states in the CEE region, which are making substantial contributions in Iraq and Afghanistan--have not yet been brought into the visa waiver program. It is incomprehensible that a critic like the French anti-globalization activist Jose Bove does not require a visa for the United States but former Solidarity activist and Nobel Peace prizewinner Lech Walesa does. This issue will be resolved only if it is made a political priority by the President of the United States. The steps we made together since 1989 are not minor in history. The common successes are the proper foundation for the transatlantic renaissance we need today. This is why we believe that we should also consider the creation of a Legacy Fellowship for young leaders. Twenty years have passed since the revolutions of 1989. That is a whole generation. We need a new generation to renew the transatlantic partnership. A new program should be launched to identify those young leaders on both sides of the Atlantic who can carry forward the transatlantic project we have spent the last two decades building in Central and Eastern Europe. In conclusion, the onset of a new Administration in the United States has raised great hopes in our countries for a transatlantic renewal. It is an opportunity we dare not miss. We, the authors of this letter, know firsthand how important the relationship with the United States has been. In the 1990s, a large part of getting Europe right was about getting Central and Eastern Europe right. The engagement of the United States was critical to locking in peace and stability from the Baltics to the Black Sea. Today the goal must be to keep Central and Eastern Europe right as a stable, activist, and Atlanticist part of our broader community. That is the key to our success in bringing about the renaissance in the Alliance the Obama Administration has committed itself to work for and which we support. That will require both sides recommitting to and investing in this relationship. But if we do it right, the pay off down the road can be very real. By taking the right steps now, we can put it on new and solid footing for the future. Valdas Adamkus, Former President of the Republic of Lithuania; Martin Butora, Former Ambassador of the Slovak Republic to the United States; Emil Constantinescu, Former President of the Republic of Romania; Pavol Demes, Former Minister of International Relations and Advisor to the President, Slovak Republic; Lubos Dobrovsky, Former Minister of Defense of Czechoslovakia, former Czech Ambassador to Russia; Matyas Eorsi, Former Secretary of State of the Hungarian MFA; Istvan Gyarmati, Ambassador, President of the International Centre for Democratic Transition in Budapest; Vaclav Havel, Former President of the Czech Republic; Rastislav Kacer, Former Ambassador of the Slovak Republic to the United States; Sandra Kalniete, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Latvia; Karel Schwarzenberg, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Czech Republic; Michal Kovac, Former President of the Slovak Republic; Ivan Krastev, Chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia, Bulgaria; Aleksander Kwasniewski, Former President of the Republic of Poland; Mart Laar, Former Prime Minister of Estonia; Kadri Liik, Director of the International Centre for Defense Studies in Tallinn, Estonia; Janos Martonyi, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hungary; Janusz Onyszkiewicz, Former Vice-president of the European Parliament, former Defense Minister, Poland; Adam Rotfeld, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Poland; Alexandr Vondra, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister, Czech Republic; Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Former President of the Republic of Latvia; Lech Walesa, Former President of the Republic of Poland.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I'm just standing to commend my colleague, Congresswoman Schakowsky, for this great effort and just reaffirm the fact that this is true bipartisan support from the Illinois delegation and, more importantly, not just bipartisan but the entire Illinois delegation, both up State and down State. Sometimes our State, which is very large, like many other States, and so we have our differences regionally, but this is one where we're truly united, and we've signed a letter in support. We see the benefits to show off not just the State of Illinois but really the great City of Chicago, the city that does work, and we invite the world community there and the rest of the State during this. And we hope that we're very successful in landing eventually the Olympics, and it will be great for the country. It will be great for the State of Illinois, and it will be great for the City of Chicago. So I want to commend my colleague.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Melvin Price Locks and Dam is named after an historic member of this Chamber, Mel Price, who gave me my nomination to West Point. So it is with great affinity that I just mentioned that. But now that district is ably represented by my friend and colleague, Jerry Costello, and I thank him for including me on this reauthorization bill. The Republicans have already talked about an all-of-the-above energy strategy which talks about nuclear, wind, solar and hydroelectric. And no one is really more knowledgeable on the hydroelectric issue than the colleague who preceded me, Greg Walden. There is a concern about if we want these programs, these licenses, to actually become real projects in the whole credit issue, then this has to qualify for renewable, and that will help bring some dollars to help effect this instead of just worrying about relicensing, then we can actually get it built. But if we don't do this process, then we have to go through the whole paperwork procedure. I'm very happy to be here with my friend who, again, worked hard and diligently for southern Illinois. And this is all part of that all-of- the-above energy strategy that will help us decrease our reliance on imported crude oil. Thank you for letting me join you in this resolution.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, the pending health care legislation does one thing: It does bend the cost curve, but it bends it up. That's not according to me or my colleagues. That's according to the Congressional Budget Office that says private insurance rates will go up and the public option insurance will go up. What does that result in? 4.7 million jobs could be lost as a result of increased taxes, particularly hard-hit small businesses. Where are the jobs? My Blue Dog colleagues are down at the House negotiating some face- saving measure in this bill, and I'm going to include this list of their proposals, but I want to make sure that they comply with their July 9 letter which says it must be deficit neutral, it must protect rural health care, it must ensure bipartisanship, and finally, any health care reform legislation that comes to the floor must be available to all Members and the public for a sufficient amount of time before we are asked to vote on it. This is government. This is transparency. The Blue Dogs need to enforce it.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2996. Requesting Member: John M. Shimkus Bill number: H.R. 2996--Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill The Account: STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project-- Sharpsburg and Neighboring Area Water System Requesting Entity: Sharpsburg and Neighboring Area Water System is located at PO Box 355 Taylorville, IL 62568. The funding will be used for the installation of infrastructure to serve the Sharpsburg and Neighboring Area Water System to serve residents on regional system that will replace bad wells.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time to come down to the floor and talk about the bill which recently passed the House, the cap- and-trade, cap-and-tax national energy tax bill, which has a basic premise. The basic premise says that there is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The solution is to make sure that the emission of carbon dioxide is charged more, and that charge will decrease our reliance on that by forcing people not to use fossil fuels. It sounds simple. It is not that simple. Fossil fuels is the basic foundational fuel for a thriving economy. And in this economy that we have today, the last thing we want to do is slow that engine by raising costs. Energy is a component in the cost of everything we do. Here in this Chamber, we appreciate the lights being on. That currently is possible by fossil fuels. Whether that is coal or natural gas, fossil fuels help create that electricity. As we drive back and forth to our districts, the gasoline is a fossil fuel. If we are flying back to our districts, the jet fuel is a fossil fuel. If we add a cost on the use of fossil fuels, the cost for everything increases from the clothes that you wear to the food that you consume and to the houses that you build. The last time we went through environmental legislation that dealt with the Clean Air Act, there was great devastation of jobs throughout the Midwest. An example is this poster that I bring to the floor numerous times of United Mine Worker members from Peabody No. 10 in Kincaid, Illinois. When the last Clean Air Act amendments were adopted, 1,200 mine workers in this mine alone lost their jobs. There is an effect by the legislation that we pass here on the floor of this House. And not only did it affect these individual miners, but it affected all the communities from which they have come from because that was the major job creator in this county was those who operated this mine. They not only lost their jobs, but in southern Illinois, 14,000 other mine workers lost their jobs. This is very similar to what happened throughout the rest of the Midwestern States. The one that really is poignant because the head of the Ohio Coal Association, the Ohio Mining Association came before our committee and said, after the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, 35,000 coal mine workers lost their jobs. And so that's why those of us from coal-producing areas and those of us who want low-cost fuel have come to the floor and we fought so diligently in opposition to the national energy tax. Now, if we want to move on the national energy tax and if we want to limit the amount of carbon dioxide because the atmosphere has too much, wouldn't it be important to ensure that the rest of the countries that are developing would also comply? But the bill that passed the House had no provision, had no trigger to ensure that the number one emitter of carbon dioxide would have to comply in a regime, and that's China. Another major emitter of carbon dioxide is India. They're not involved and responsible for moving to limit their emissions. So, for the United States to go into and disarm ourselves by raising our energy costs against countries that compete with us because they can pay their employees more, they don't comply with environmental standards, now we are going to allow them to have cheaper energy, it is just a foolish proposition. So what have Republicans done? We've come to the floor to talk about what really are the energy demands that we have in this country. We need to decrease our reliance on imported crude oil. The cap-and-tax bill does nothing to decrease our reliance on imported crude oil. What we have proposed is making sure that we take access of the Outer Continental Shelf, the oil and gas reserves there. The royalties then are used not to continue to bring additional taxes on the American people. The royalties are used to expand wind and solar power that is now developing throughout this country, which we support because we want a diversified energy portfolio. We want to make sure we use our most efficient, cheapest source that we have, which is coal. We want to use it for electricity generation, driving down electricity prices. We also want to use that to produce liquid fuel, so we have a competitor. That is where we decrease our reliance on imported crude oil.