Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak out against Bill No. 18, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, which will soon be considered for passage by the government of Uganda. This proposed legislation criminalizes and punishes homosexuality, thereby endangering the lives of all Ugandans and threatening their civil and human rights. This is outrageously discriminatory and deeply troubling.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill was introduced as a Private Member's Bill by Ugandan Member of Parliament David Bahati of the National Resistance Movement Party on April 29, 2009. Following adoption, it was published in the Uganda Gazette on September 25, 2009, according to the procedural rules of the Ugandan Parliament. A vast majority of governments throughout the world, including the United States, continue to deny full civil rights and protections to their lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, LGBT, citizens. However, the Anti- Homosexuality Bill takes this to a deadly extreme.

This legislation condemns HIV-positive citizens, including minors, who engage in consensual homosexual acts to death and sentences citizens who engage in consensual homosexual acts to life imprisonment. The Anti-Homosexuality Bill also seeks to persecute LGBT citizens living abroad by extraditing them for acts committed outside Uganda, including those who are also dual citizens of Uganda and the United States. Furthermore, this legislation requires known homosexuals to be reported to the authorities within 24 hours; failure to do so would result in a jail term of up to 3 years. This applies to Ugandan nationals and dual citizens living abroad, as well as any person who witnesses such an act within Uganda, regardless of whether they have legal ties to the Ugandan nation. Finally, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill requires that its provisions override any commitment to international agreements or protocols that recognize the rights of LGBT persons to the extent of the inconsistency between the two. As a responsible member of the international community, the United States cannot condone such a bill becoming law.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill legislates against the fundamental democratic right of freedom from fear of physical harm by one's own government. This legislation would undermine the government of Uganda's commitment to democracy at a most basic level, significantly damage its relations with the international community, and risk inciting greater hate-motivated violence within Uganda itself. Its mere existence almost certainly will lead to violence against individuals who either are LGBT or are rumored to be LGBT, their families, and community leaders in their places of worship, homes, schools, and businesses.

Furthermore, I am deeply concerned about the consequences that this bill would have on public health in Uganda as it attempts to combat HIV/AIDS. The stigmatization of homosexual identity and behavior continues to stymie efforts to fight HIV/AIDS in the United States and abroad. The bill's criminalization of homosexuality will undoubtedly discourage individuals from having the open and honest discussions about their sexual health and behavior that are crucial to lessening the spread and burden of this infection.

I commend President Obama and State Secretary Clinton for denouncing this bigoted legislation and am pleased to acknowledge that their sentiments have been publicly shared by the European Union, Canada, and other nations and international human rights groups. In addition, I also applaud those Ugandans, including Senior Advisor to President Museveni, John Nagenda, who have spoken out in opposition to this bill and urge them to fight it when Uganda's parliament enters discussions on the matter in February or March of this year.

I am further encouraged by Secretary Clinton's commitment to protect ``the rights of the LGBT community worldwide'' and will continue working to ensure that sexual orientation and gender identity not constitute the basis for criminal penalties, harassment, or discrimination. It is my fervent hope that Congress will show a similar commitment to its own LGBT citizens as it is called upon to repeal discriminatory legislation such as ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' and the Defense of Marriage Act.

Madam Speaker, I unequivocally condemn the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in the strongest possible terms and urge the government of Uganda to withdraw this bill and support the inalienable human rights of all people.

Madam Speaker, as Co-Chairman of the US Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (the Helsinki Commission), and a former President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, it is bittersweet that I rise today to honor the retirement of one of this nation's closest friends north of our border. Senator Jerahmiel ``Jerry'' Grafstein of Canada is well known to many in this House. To me, he has been a mentor, friend, and colleague for the past 15 years or so. Senator Grafstein ends his service to the Canadian Senate this month. The distinguished Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, my very good friend Ben Cardin of Maryland, recently gave an eloquent tribute on the Senate floor to Jerry Grafstein. Rather than try to be redundant to what Chairman Cardin has already said, I thought to honor Senator Grafstein by sharing with this House his insightful final speech in the Senate of Canada. I hope my colleagues will read it and learn from it for years to come. Let me finally say to Sen. Grafstein that I thank him for his service to his country, his friendship to our country, and his tireless work on behalf of humanity. I look forward to seeing him in Washington or the great State of Florida sometime very soon.

Senate of Canada, December 9, 2009

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, thank you

for those most generous words. My late father would have been

surprised. My late mother would have said, ``Not nearly

enough.'' Honourable senators, I have always been curious

about the words, ``maiden speech.'' By custom, it designates

the first speech a parliamentarian makes when a

parliamentarian enters a house of Parliament. What do we call

a farewell speech in Parliament when we are no longer a

maiden? I leave that to honourable senators' imagination.

It has been over 25 years since I was first summoned to the

Senate by Mr. Trudeau. When he called to appoint me, he said,

``We need you in the Senate; take your time, Jerry, to think

about it.'' I told the Prime Minister I did not need any

time, that I accepted. ``This is the greatest honour anyone

has ever bestowed on me,'' I told him. ``However, Prime

Minister, I do have one question.'' Mr. Trudeau laughed.

``What is your question, Jerry?'' he asked. I asked, ``What

did you mean when you said, ``We need you in the Senate'?''

Mr. Trudeau laughed again and I heard the phone drop. A

second later he apologized and said he did not mean to laugh.

He said, ``Jerry, you are the very first person I have ever

appointed who asked me why.'' ``Well, Prime Minister, why?''

I repeated. ``Why am I needed in the Senate?'' He responded

so graciously, and he said these words--I made notes at the

time: ``You have provided me with great ideas. Now I want you

to use the Senate as a platform to share those ideas with the

Canadian public.''

Honourable senators, I have tried. Sometimes I succeeded.

Many times I failed. However, I have been motivated by three

pieces of advice that Mr. Pearson gave me when I first

entered politics and I sat beside him. He told me these three

things: Aim high, work hard, and be fair. Some time before my

appointment, Mr. Trudeau told me at a meeting, ``Jerry, you

have great ideas, but you have not overcome one problem that

you have.'' ``What is that?'' I said. ``I do not have any

problems.''

``Yes, you do,'' he said. ``Each time you advocate a great

idea, automatically and spontaneously, a coalition of `antis'

spring up to fight any good idea. Your job as a politician is

to navigate around that coalition and get to the other

side.'' Then he said these words that I have never forgotten:

``Never give up.''

Honourable senators, each day when I awake at the Chateau

Laurier, I say a short Hebrew prayer: Modeh ani Lefanecha--

Thank God who has awakened my soul to live another day. I

walk a hundred steps from the Chateau Laurier across the

historic bridge over the Rideau Canal and look up to the

statue of my great political hero, as Senator Munson

mentioned, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and give him a morning

salute. Then I take another hundred steps, past the East

Block, and the most beautiful building in Canada looms into

sight. What a sight it is.

I see the Parliament buildings, the Peace Tower and, on top

of it, the Canadian flag flying. I remember the courage of

Mr. Pearson, who introduced the flag in the face of great

division in this country. I swear every morning that I will

do my very best that day for the privilege of serving in the

Senate and here in Parliament. Honourable senators, I have

served under eight Prime Ministers and twelve leaders in the

Senate. I want to thank all of my colleagues, but especially

the current deputy leaders, Senator Tardif and Senator

Comeau, who have the most complex jobs in the Senate. I want

to say how much I admire both of them.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Grafstein: Of course, I salute my own leader, the

graceful Senator Cowan, and the Leader of the Government in

the Senate, Senator LeBreton, both of whom lead us here so

very ably. Thank you so much. May I thank the reporters who

have reproduced--do not be shocked--almost 5 million words of

my speeches, resolutions, comments and reports. I would be

remiss if I did not mention the researchers of the Library of

Parliament who have responded to my needs. To Mark Audcent

and to the legislative staff who drafted my bills, motions

and resolutions with skill and professionalism, I thank you.

For the many courtesies offered to me by the Speaker, his

predecessors, by the Deputy Speaker, and to all the table

officers, my sincere appreciation for your patience and

advice. I have learned much from all of you. Of course my

special appreciation goes to my executive assistant, who is

sitting up in the gallery, Mary de Toro, who leads my mighty

staff of one, the wisest woman on Parliament Hill who has

kept me from making disastrous mistakes.

My first decision when I came to the Senate was what name

and what designation I should use as senator. I chose my

first given name, Jerahmiel, although people have called me

Jerry. People have been curious about why that name and not

my customary name, Jerry. Jerahmiel is mentioned only once in

the Bible. He was the son of the last King of Israel. The

name means ``the mercy of God.'' It is meant to remind the

holders of that name to remember that they are here to help

the less fortunate. My other designation as senator is Metro

Toronto, to remind me of the great city of Toronto and the

regional base of the key of my responsibilities here.

What lessons have I learned in the Senate? Honourable

senators, I will not predict the future. I have always worked

hard in the past and in the present. In the process, I became

a much better criminal lawyer, a substantial constitutional

lawyer, as my friend Senator Nolin has become, and an expert

international lawyer. The future, honourable senators, I

leave to you.

The precious gift that the Fathers of Confederation

bestowed on the Senate and senators was independence and the

freedom to make choices. That is what Sir John A. Macdonald

and the Fathers of Confederation gave each and every one of

us. Most of my choices I shared with my party and my leader,

and sometimes I disagreed and did as Mr. Trudeau advised,

spoke my mind to the discomfort at times of my leaders and my

colleagues on this side.

I have served on all the committees of the Senate, and I

have been kicked off several committees several times when I

did so, and I do not regret it. I always believed that the

Senate acts best when it is true to its mandate as a chamber

of second sober thought. The Senate has always made mistakes

when there has been a rush to judgment. ``Principles and

pragmatism,'' so said Lloyd George, ``march best when they

march together.''

This chamber, following the teachings of the great

Blackstone, is a chamber dedicated to checks and balances. To

check and balance the executive and the other house of

Parliament is our constitutional mandate. Hence, we should

not place our trust blindly in government. Governments do

what they do and do what they want and do what they must. It

can be best summed up in Psalm 146: ``Put not your trust in

princes.'' We are here to speak truth to power. That is our

constitutional duty.

I recall my maiden speech when I advocated an apology to

Canadians of Japanese descent. Mr. Trudeau, who had just

appointed me, disagreed. He argued that we cannot correct the

past but can only improve the future. I disagreed with him on

the facts. Citizens of Japanese origin had been deprived of

their rights and property during the war, and there was no

evidence whatsoever provided to me or to the Prime Minister

at the time to call in or question their loyalty to Canada. I

advocated for an apology, and ultimately it was given by

Brian Mulroney, and I respect him for that.

I recall the extradition bill, as Senator Joyal pointed

out, passed by a Liberal government in haste, with barely a

debate in the other place. Under that bill, the Liberal

Attorney General of Canada of the day would have had the

power to extradite Canadians to a state that practiced

capital punishment even though Parliament had abolished

capital punishment under Mr. Trudeau after a fantastic and

unbelievable fight across the

country. The government wanted that bill. They wanted it

then. They urged it was important because of pending

decisions.

I disagreed, and so did my colleague Senator Joyal.

Together, with other colleagues in this chamber, we kept that

debate going for several months, but finally we succumbed to

our leadership and to government pressure. Senator Joyal and

I decided to make our arguments in the Senate at third

reading as if we were arguing before the Supreme Court of

Canada because we felt that that bill would be ultimately

challenged and would be shown to be unconstitutional. We sent

the Senate Hansard, a public document, to all the judges of

the Supreme Court, and we were so pleased over a year later

when the Supreme Court of Canada upheld our major arguments.

I remember another important debate on a resolution

introduced in the other place declaring Quebec ``a distinct

society.'' The government introduced that resolution here

shortly after the referendum. I angered my colleagues on this

side, I angered the Prime Minister, I angered the leader of

the Senate, my great friend Allan MacEachen, and other

colleagues on this side, when I refused to support that

resolution. I gave the shortest speech I have ever given in

the Senate, and I repeat it here now: Canada is a distinct

society. All the rest is commentary.

While Quebecers are different, so are Newfoundlanders, so

are Acadians, so are hundreds and hundreds of Aboriginal

tribes and many other groups in Canada. Honourable senators,

I believed then and I believe now in one Canada, bilingual

and multicultural--one Canada.

One of my most stimulating periods was as chairman of the

Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce with

Senator Angus as my congenial deputy chairman. Together, with

a total consensus of all members on both sides, we did a

number of important, sharp and pointed studies dealing with

consumer protection of the financial securities sector, the

volunteer and charitable sector, the demographic time bomb,

stemming the flow of illicit money to Canada and others.

Hopefully the work we commenced on hedge funds and

derivatives, started well before the last financial meltdown,

and the work on reducing interprovincial trade barriers to

make Canada one dynamic competitive marketplace will be

completed by others in the Senate. Being a Canadian senator

offers unique opportunities to travel and to participate in

international affairs. One of my most satisfying experiences

has been as co-chairman of the Canada-U.S. Inter-

Parliamentary Group. I was elected to that office by members

of Parliament in both houses for eight successive terms and

served for over 16 years in that position.

The Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group was founded in

1959 and recently celebrated its fiftieth anniversary. During

my term in office, with the support of colleagues on all

sides, bipartisan, we transformed that organization from one

annual meeting with the Americans to an active, vigorous

advocacy group meeting with state legislators, governors in

every corner of America, in addition to regular meetings on

Capitol Hill in Washington with congressmen and senators to

advocate one thing, Canada's interest. We learned that all

politics is local, and so we have to work at the local level

in the United States, and hence our meeting with state

officials and governors. All problems in the United States

affecting Canada start at the local level and, if detected

early enough, can be diluted if not resolved.

After each meeting, honourable senators, as I will do later

today, we tabled a complete report of our activities to the

Senate to ensure that the senators who were interested could

benefit from our experience. We were not there to represent

ourselves. We were there to represent Canada, and that is why

we tabled these reports. I want to thank my current co-chair

in the house, Gord Brown, and my current American co-chairs,

Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Congressman James

Oberstar of Minnesota, who is the only member of our group

who has served the Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group

longer than I.

When I first came to the Senate, I was able to travel to a

number of international organizations consistent with my work

on the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and

International Trade, where I and my colleague Senator

Stollery have been the longest serving members. I decided

that I would focus my activities where Canada and the United

States both had a vote, the Organization for Security and Co-

operation in Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, which flowed out

of the Helsinki Accord in 1974, currently with 56 member

states from Vladivostok to Vancouver.

There I became an active member on the executive and served

as an elected member for 15 years. This organization is the

largest parliamentary assembly dedicated to human rights,

economic rights and democratic rights in the world. I became

a witness to history serving as one of the heads of election

monitoring in Russia, Ukraine during the Orange Revolution,

Georgia during the Rose Revolution and on the Independence

Referendum for Montenegro and many others. Senator Di Nino

has also served on a number of those committees with great

skill and expertise.

I learned how precious democracy is and how important

democracy building is for the future of the world. I worked

closely with elected presidents of the assembly, and I want

to pay special tribute to two recent presidents: Congressmen

Alcee Hastings of Florida and Joao Soares, the head of the

Portuguese Delegation and current Vice-President of the OSCE

Parliamentary Assembly, who have done outstanding work

travelling the length and breadth of the OSCE space. We have

become great personal friends.

A sparkplug in this organization, which is headquartered in

Copenhagen, is Spencer Oliver, the long-serving Secretary

General, who is the most brilliant and knowledgeable American

I have ever met, with a deep and penetrating insight into

foreign affairs. He has become one of my closest friends in

public life. While at the OSCE PA, I served as leader of the

Liberal group there, and I finally resigned this year after

12 years. They elected me as Liberal Leader Emeritus

Perpetual, a title I will cherish all my life. I do not kid

myself: I achieved these offices overseas because I was

Canadian, because the world respects Canada and Canadians who

represent Canada.

I think the Senate should have a brief explanation,

particularly those senators who have been mildly critical of

the numerous OSCE resolutions combating anti-Semitism on the

Order Paper that I tabled and that are still on the Order

Paper. Why those many resolutions? After the Berlin Wall came

down in 1989--and I was in Germany before and after the wall

came down--I thought I would finally close my dossier on

anti-Semitism. There was hope for a new world order. But it

was not to be. The UN had passed an invidious resolution

equating Zionism with racism.

Anti-Semitism was on the rise not only across the face of

the earth and around the globe, not only across Europe, but

also in South America and in Canada. In 1994, a diligent

congressman from New Jersey, Chris Smith, approached me to

work on a resolution to combat anti-Semitism and to present

it to the OSCE parliamentary assembly annual meeting. I

agreed. We were joined by Congressman Steny Hoyer, now the

majority leader of the Congress and one the most powerful men

in the United States, a good friend; Congressman Alcee

Hastings; Congressman Ben Cardin, now a senator from

Maryland; Gert Weisskirchen of the German Parliament and

parliamentarians from Italy, France, Austria, Ukraine, Poland

and others.

That first resolution was passed by a bare majority.

Thereafter, across the face of Europe, in Copenhagen, twice

in Berlin, Oporto, Cordoba, Rotterdam, Edinburgh, Vienna,

London, Rome, St. Petersburg, Kazakhstan, Madrid, Washington

and so forth, we continued the thrust of those resolutions,

parliamentary, ministerial and side meetings.

There were two chilly experiences. I spoke on these

resolutions in the Berlin Reichstag at the very podium where

Hitler had declared the Nuremberg Laws in 1933. I spoke in

the Hofberg Palace at the very same place in Vienna where

Hitler announced the Anschluss between Germany and Austria in

1938 that most historians agree ignited World War II. This

work continued, meeting after meeting, and finally,

honourable senators, I brought one of these resolutions to

the Senate in 2002. It was passed in 2004 and was referred to

the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. That committee

held meetings for a day or so, and then, without explanation,

decided not to complete its work.

It is the first time I can recall that a resolution passed

by the Senate was not followed by a committee of the Senate.

I urged members of the committee to complete their work, but

without success. I decided to put down resolution after

resolution on the Order Paper until there could be some

closure and conclusion to this matter. I was pleased some

years ago that the UN would use those very resolutions to

hold a one-day conference on anti-Semitism, the first of its

kind at the UN. I was delighted when the British Parliament

did a landmark study on this topic several years ago and

published it. I am pleased that, finally, parliamentarians on

the other side, under the leadership of Mario Silva and Scott

Reid, are holding hearings on combating anti-Semitism. I live

in hope that the Senate will consider its findings and add

its considerable expertise and credit to its recommendations.

I have learned two things about this topic, ``anti-

Semitism,'' the oldest of all prejudices. First, that

discrimination starts with Jews, but never ends with Jews, as

one great Danish Prime Minister once said. Second, what to

do? Education is the answer. The Nobel Prize winner Elie

Wiesel said these words at the Berlin conference: ``You can

teach a child to love or you can teach a child to hate.'' So

education is an answer. A word about Senator Di Nino: I

admire very much his work with respect to human rights not

only at the OSCE but also with respect to the Dalai Lama. He

has been a great and compatible companion at the OSCE, and he

will continue to do great and important work over there. My

congratulations to him.

Senators, I am coming to the close, but before I end, I

would like to say a word about the current atmosphere in the

Senate that I dislike. While I am as partisan--as everyone

knows--as any senator, and will vigorously attack on behalf

of my party and on behalf of my principles, I also believe in

political companionship and congeniality that rises above

partisan politics. I do not enjoy those who downgrade the

Senate, the institution we are all privileged and summoned to

serve. I have made good friends on both sides of the aisle

here and in the other place. I take my leave of this hallowed

hall with no regrets. I

tried my best, and if I failed, I have failed trying to do my

best.

Honourable senators opposite will forgive me if I remind

them that my great parliamentary hero was and is Sir Winston

Churchill, whose printed works and speeches I have read

avidly. When Britain was in the most desperate straits in the

early part of World War II, he gave this advice to his

colleagues, and this is my advice to my colleagues on this

side: KBO, keep buggering on. As for my colleagues on the

other side, I recall that Sir Winston Churchill in his dotage

confessed that he had always been a Liberal. Good advice.

If I have succeeded, I owe it to my late father and the

great mentors I have encountered in politics: Mr. Pearson,

Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Turner, Mr. Chretien and Mr. Martin, and, of

course, Keith Davey, our former colleague, who taught us all

on this side to love the Liberal Party. I will not say

goodbye, but au revoir. On January 2, I start my third act.

Regretfully, you have not heard the last of me yet. To my

wife who might feel trepidation on my return to Toronto: Do

not worry. I have lots of new projects that will keep me

eternally occupied. All the very best to all of you, Godspeed

and thank you so much.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the apology offered by the Government of Australia for the mistreatment of child migrants and children in institutional care under state supervision.

In an effort to populate its empire, the British Government assisted private organizations with settling people in many of its overseas dominions. Between 1922 and 1967 over 7,000 children were sent to Australia and placed in the care of residential institutions. Many of these children were separated from their families and never told the truth about their loved ones. They became part of the half a million Australian children who were placed in institutional or foster care during this period who would later be called the ``Forgotten Australians''. As wards of the state, the Forgotten Australians suffered from appalling physical, emotional and sexual abuse. They were subjected to harsh, often brutal discipline and labor programs, and referred to by number instead of by name.

For years, their story has been lost--unheard and unacknowledged by the wider community. The aftermath of this government-condoned suffering left deep emotional and psychological scars on countless individuals and their families, and many resorted to crime, drug and alcohol abuse and suicide.

On November 16, 2009, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd formally apologized to the Forgotten Australians on behalf of the Australian government and the Parliament of Australia and took an important step in national healing. This apology was accompanied by a commitment to properly record and share the experiences of the Forgotten Australians with future generations and support victims as they attempt to discover their familial backgrounds and reunite with loved ones.

This statement came nearly 2 years after another historic apology that Prime Minister Rudd gave on behalf of the Australian Government to the Indigenous people of Australia and the Stolen Generation. The willingness of the Australian government to address past wrongs and present inequalities shows its dedication to national healing, growth and reconciliation.

Madam Speaker, I commend the Australian Government for acknowledging its past transgressions and for its commitment to the sacred duty of protecting its children, families and communities in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Outpatient Mental Health Modernization Act of 2009, which will support a high quality and cost-savings approach to long-term care mental health services.

Five million Medicare beneficiaries have mental disorders other than mental retardation and 1.3 million of these individuals are under the age of 65. Medicare Partial Hospitalization Programs (PHPs) provide a structured and clinically intensive alternative to hospitalization for patients who otherwise might require sustained inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. PHP psychiatric patients typically receive four to six hours of treatment per day, five to six days a week in hospital-based settings and community mental health centers.

The severity the patient's illness often prevents the individual from obtaining or seeking transportation to the PHP facility, or from accessing high quality food. Additionally, some psychiatric medications that are prescribed to the patient cannot be safely administered without food. These patients often live in group-supervised settings due to difficulties in maintaining family relationships and their financial instability.

Currently, Medicare does not cover the costs of nutritional planning, meals or transportation for patients who receive psychiatric treatment in a PHP setting. Therefore, PHP facilities are responsible for the cost of providing food and transportation. This aggravates financial burdens that many PHPs and countless other community organizations are experiencing in these difficult economic times.

The Outpatient Mental Health Modernization Act of 2009 requires Medicare to reimburse PHPs for providing transportation and food and nutritional services. The bill also establishes a Behavioral Health Advisory Committee in which a diverse group of behavioral health stakeholders would examine and provide recommendations on how to address the

persisting challenges of access, stigma, quality and operability in the mental health delivery system. The Outpatient Mental Health Modernization Act of 2009 is a house companion to S. 1522, a bill that was introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) on July 28, 2009.

Madam Speaker, PHPs are a cost effective alternative that can prevent mentally ill individuals from facing expensive inpatient care, incarceration, or institutionalization. The growing use and role of mental health PHPs in our health care system requires that we amend the law to assist PHPs in delivering the services, care and support to those who are living with severe and chronic mental illness. I urge my colleagues to support the bi-partisan Outpatient Mental Health Modernization Act of 2009, which help sustain an important treatment option in long-term care service network.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution expressing sympathy for and solidarity with the people of the Russian Federation following the bombing of the Nevsky Express. This is a simple measure, but an important one. After our Nation suffered the terrorist attacks of 2001, Russia was among the first to reach out and offer unqualified condolences and support. Madam Speaker, too often when the Russians hear from this body they hear moralistic statements of condemnation and outrage. In the spirit of fairness and mutual respect, now is the time for Russia to hear our genuine sympathy and support. We all face a common enemy in the terrorists and extremists who would murder innocents to advance an ideology. Let us stand together with our Russian neighbors in their moment of sorrow and work together for a safer world. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of humanitarian and compassionate activist, Mr. Jose Lagos. Mr. Lagos died of cancer on November 30, 2009 at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, Florida at the age of 45. My heartfelt condolences go out to his family and friends at this most difficult time.

Emigrating from his home country of Honduras, Mr. Lagos spent his life working to improve South Florida's immigration policies. He was born on April 11, 1964 in the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa, where he attended a Catholic high school. In 1985, Mr. Lagos and his family relocated to Miami where he enrolled at Miami-Dade Community College. He went on to earn an Associate's Degree in business administration. In 1990, Mr. Lagos began working on immigration issues as the executive director of an association that helped medical school graduates from other countries obtain their physician's licenses.

Mr. Lagos was a true leader and unifier. South Florida is a mosaic of different immigrant cultures and, unfortunately, many Federal immigration policies have proven to be more divisive than effective. Mr. Lagos worked to overcome these obstacles. As director of the non- profit Unidad Hondurena, Spanish for ``Honduran Unity,'' Mr. Lagos bridged ideological gaps and created powerful synergies throughout the immigration community. He led vigorous grassroots efforts to advance the rights of fellow Hondurans and Hispanics, including protesting fee hikes for temporary work permits and citizenship applications, alerting immigrants to scams, and organizing charities. Mr. Lagos understood the power of unity and also strongly supported efforts to gain Temporary Protected Status, TPS, for Haitians.

One year ago, Mr. Lagos was diagnosed with cancer. Throughout his treatment, however, his spirit never wavered. He continued to speak on behalf of those who came to our country seeking the American dream. This past summer, Mr. Lagos exhibited his dedication and courage outside a church in Little Havana by rallying others to protest the suspension of international aid to Honduras. This is the mark of a true hero, a champion of the people.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Jose Lagos will be remembered in South Florida for his message of unity. He celebrated and embodied our great nation's rich immigrant heritage. The loss of Mr. Lagos is indeed a loss for us all, and for the battle for fair immigration reform.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Diana Stanley and to recognize her contributions in fighting homelessness in South Florida. Ms. Stanley is the Executive Director of The Lord's Place, one of the leading homeless providers in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Lord's Place provides homeless families and individuals with a new beginning.

Beginning as a modest soup kitchen in 1979, The Lord's Place has become a place of transformation for many homeless men, women, and children in Palm Beach County over the last 30 years. In 1983, The Lord's Place expanded its services by opening its first shelter and has since opened two more shelters along with two retail stores and a retail job-training program. In 1997, The Lord's Place began a partnership with Cafe Joshua, another homeless restoration agency, to provide additional and improved services in the community. In April 2000, this collaboration led to the merger of the two organizations. The Lord's Place is dedicated to breaking the cycle of homelessness by providing innovative, compassionate, and effective services to those in need in the community.

Ms. Diana Stanley joined The Lord's Place as Executive Director in April 2007. Under her leadership, The Lord's Place created two campuses: a family campus in West Palm Beach, bringing together the Family Emergency Housing Program with the Family Permanent Program; and a men's campus in Boynton Beach, joining the day program, Operation JumpStart, with the permanent men's housing program, Joshua House.

Furthermore, Ms. Stanley enhanced the agency's internal continuum of care with two new programs. The Engagement Center provides the area homeless and near-homeless with a much needed point-of-entry to services in the community. In the first year of operation, more than 14,000 men, women, and children entered through the Engagement Center doors for a hot meal, peer mentoring, access to the resource center, and case management services in a home-like atmosphere. Additionally, the Recovery Center is an innovative new emergency housing program for single men located on the Boynton Beach property opposite Joshua House. Its innovative programming provides housing and personalized support services designed to address the issues that led to the resident's homelessness.

In 2008, Ms. Stanley was the driving force in creating The Lord's Place's Micro-Enterprise Program, comprised of Cafe Joshua Catering, Maintenance and Beyond, and The Lord's Place's new thrift shop and coffee bar, ``One More Time.'' In 2009, the Cafe Joshua Job Training and Placement Program was born, enhancing Cafe Joshua programming. The program employs an education model that teaches the hard and soft skills necessary for successful employment. It meets the participant where they are in their process of finding a job and teaches them employable skills in a supportive environment.

Madam Speaker, I truly appreciate all the hard work that Ms. Diana Stanley does each and every single day on behalf of the less fortunate in the West Palm Beach community. Ms. Stanley has been an integral part in writing Palm Beach County's 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness. With her assistance, the plan was recently approved by the Palm Beach County Board of Commissioners. I greatly admire her commitment and dedication to helping the homeless get back on their feet as our nation strives to end homelessness.

Mr. Speaker, one of the great privileges we have is to come here and speak about those who have departed life and to pay condolences and commiserate with their families.

Last week, three persons that were very dear to me died. They are Isaiah ``Ike'' Williams, a classmate of mine in law school from Jacksonville; C. Bette Winbush, the first black city commissioner in St. Petersburg; and the Reverend Samuel George, a Presbyterian minister that lived in Pittsburgh but in my earlier career worked in Fort Lauderdale. All three of these people fought their entire lives for tolerance and equality. The Reverend George taught me a great deal about ecumenism and interdenominational undertakings.

Their courage brings to mind for me the courage, turning away from their work, to those that are in the streets in Iran who are protesting their government as I did with Reverend George and C. Bette and Ike and are saying to their government that they should be free and have the opportunity to protest.

I just want those Iranians to know, as I give condolences to my friends that have all departed, that they are not alone. And one of the things that we used to say in the civil rights movement, the whole world is watching.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a courageous veteran turned social activist, Mr. Roy Foster. Mr. Foster is the founder of Stand Down House, an organization in South Florida that has been providing veterans with life-changing assistance since 2000. His hard work and dedication has earned him the esteemed distinction of 2009 Top 10 CNN Hero. CNN Heroes is an annual awards ceremony that recognizes ``everyday people changing the world.'' Mr. Foster was one of ten CNN Heroes chosen by a blue-ribbon panel of distinguished leaders and humanitarians, including Retired General Colin Powell, Whoopi Goldberg, and Sir Elton John, from an initial pool of more than 9,000 viewer nominations.

Mr. Foster knows all too well how hard it is to find programs that help veterans deal with addiction and homelessness because he used to be one of them. Born in rural Georgia, Mr. Foster joined the Army right after high school. Throughout his six years in the military, he drank alcohol and experimented with drugs. By the time he left the Army in 1980, Mr. Foster was an alcoholic and his drug use had begun to escalate as he struggled to deal with life after the Army. Like many people dealing with addiction, Mr. Foster spent nights sleeping on the streets as he battled his disease for many years.

After starting a life of sobriety in the early 1990s, Mr. Foster used his experiences to become an effective substance abuse counselor. Acknowledging the problems that veterans dealing with substance abuse face, Mr. Foster and another veteran, the late Don Reed, established the non- profit Faith*Hope*Love*Charity, Inc. so that veterans would no longer fall through the cracks of an imperfect system.

After six years of work, Mr. Foster founded Stand Down House to help fellow veterans who are struggling and have lost their homes, dignity, and the ability to lead productive lives. Through referral by the Veterans Administration (VA) and with help from their funding, Stand Down House provides transitional housing and support services to 45 veterans in different stages of recovery. This support includes housing, clothing, counseling, life skills classes for up to two years, and transportation to the VA hospital for medical and mental health care. The goal is to not only assist veterans in their recovery process, but give them the tools to find employment or attend school after their recovery process is over.

At Stand Down House, veterans realize that they are not alone in their struggles after returning home, which allows for veterans of all

ages to become a support system for one another. This often leads to veterans becoming informal counselors to each other and making sure that one another stay on track. Many graduates of the program find the bond of friendship and support so beneficial that they return as volunteers to give back to others in need, especially with many veterans now returning home from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I truly admire the work that Mr. Roy Foster has done, and continues to do, for our nation's veterans each and every single day. After serving our country so valiantly, no veteran should ever have to face the future alone.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life and achievements of my lifelong friend and widely respected community leader, Isiah ``Ike'' Jesse Williams III, who died on November 25, 2009, in Jacksonville, Florida, at the age of 78. Ike had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease 6 years prior to his death, and my thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, Marilyn Wilkerson-Williams; daughter, Helen Rogers; sons, Rodney Williams, Ira Marche, Isiah Williams IV, and Mark Benson; and the rest of his family and friends at this most difficult time. Ike was a community activist, scholar, lawyer, publisher, journalist, historian, and union organizer. Above all, however, he was a true inspiration to everyone who knew him.

Ike was born to Helen and Isiah Williams of Jacksonville on September 27, 1931. He attended Fessenden Academy, a small private school in Ocala, Florida, and graduated in 1949. A truly brilliant man, Ike went on to earn numerous degrees, including an associate's degree from Edward Waters College, a bachelor's Degree from Florida Memorial College, a Juris Doctor from Florida A & M University, and a master's degree from Brooklyn Law School in New York. He also studied at the New School for Social Research and Xavier Institute of Labor Relation in New York City. During his studies, Ike pledged Psi Beta Sigma, of which he was a dedicated member for more than 50 years.

A man of courage and excellence, Ike served with distinction in the U.S. Army and was a proud veteran of the Korean war. After his service, he moved to New York and successfully practiced law for 10 years. It was during those historic years of the civil rights movement that Ike was an attorney for the Black Panthers and became friends with powerful leaders such as Adam Clayton Powell and Malcolm X.

Back in his home State of Florida, Ike continued his fight for civil equality in the community. He was a true champion of the people and came to be known as a respected community leader in Jacksonville through the many important organizations where he held positions. Ike was a lifetime member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a Mason, a founding member of the National Business League, and the founder of the Jacksonville Advocate, which was published weekly for 30 years. Furthermore, Ike also served as Publisher Emeritus of the People's Advocate. Both newspapers featured articles that highlighted accomplishments in the African American community. An early member of the Jacksonville Historic Landmarks Commission, Ike was a fitting keeper for the preservation of the history of the African American community and organized the Joseph E. Lee Library-Museum. In addition, he also helped form the Brotherhood of Black Firefighters.

Ike's hard work and dedication on behalf of all those who have been denied a voice earned him many awards. In 2005, he was awarded with the Onyx Award for Communications, a state honor that he dearly cherished. Most recently, he received the National Whitney M. Young Lifetime Achievement award presented by the Jacksonville Urban League.

Madam Speaker, Ike's legacy will live on for generations to come in the lives he has touched, and continues to touch. He was my dear friend and I am proud and fortunate to have known him.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 962 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 962.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 962 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII which requires a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. This waiver would apply to any rule reported through the legislative day of December 10, 2009, that provides for same-day consideration of H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009.

I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will support this rule so that we can move quickly to enact this critically important legislation.

Over the past year, the financial crisis has shown that the deregulation or even the lack of regulation over financial firms is not an option anymore. For the first time ever, this legislation provides key provisions that will mandate oversight of certain parts of the United States financial system. It will ensure that mortgage lenders are subject to high national standards so they can no longer give an individual a loan that they cannot afford to pay back. Furthermore, it will provide for a new interagency oversight council that will allow Federal regulators to oversee the entire system and identify activities that pose a risk to our Nation's financial system. It will also require comprehensive regulation of the opaque over-the-counter derivatives marketplace.

In my home State of Florida, we are undoubtedly facing an insurance crisis. Homeowners are burdened by continuously increasing property insurance premiums, or some are losing their coverage altogether while companies are going under or simply leaving the State. This poses a problem not only to property owners who cannot afford increasing costs in this difficult economy but also to the State, which has taken on the responsibility of covering those who cannot get insurance elsewhere, and to the Federal Government, which may be left to deal with the damage when disaster strikes.

H.R. 4173 directs the Federal Insurance Office to conduct a study on the modernization and improvement of the insurance industry in the United States. I introduced an amendment to the underlying legislation asking that they also look at the geographic disparities in cost and access within this study.

Hurricanes, floods, fires, windstorms are factors driving the cost of insurance higher in Florida than in some other areas of the country. Numerous private insurers have recently sought rate hikes, with regulators approving increases as much as 15 percent.

Now, we certainly cannot change the fact that certain regions face higher risks than others. However, the amendment that I filed will help determine what changes to the industry and its regulation can help ensure that these necessary insurance protections are available, accessible, and reasonably affordable for all Americans.

H.R. 4173 will also provide American consumers with long overdue safeguards and reflects the Congress's commitment to putting the needs of the American people before those of Wall Street. I am pleased that Chairman Frank has seen fit to include the amendment that I just spoke to in his manager's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield myself some time and then yield to the dean of the House. But I would like, previous to yielding to the dean, to address my colleague's immediate concerns regarding the procedure in this measure.

He decries the procedure. I served in the minority with my colleague, who is now in the minority. This is not an unusual procedure, particularly given the importance of this legislation.

I want to point out that in the 109th Congress, the Republican majority reported at least 21 rules that allowed same-day consideration. In fact, five of those rules waived this requirement against any rule reported from the committee; by contrast, this rule is only for this one specific bill and only for today.

Additionally, I would like to address my colleague's concerns regarding where we are. I've been hearing repeatedly on this floor that the Democrats have not done anything. I won't give the litany of everything that we have done, but I do want to clear up, when we are referred to as persons that are happily spending like we are drunk sailors, I want to know what we started out with.

My colleagues seem to forget that we inherited a financial mess, a system on the brink of collapse. I didn't hear the cry when Mr. Paulson came here and said that our financial system was on its knees. We reacted, both Democrat and Republican, and I might add even the TARP did better than most Democrats and Republicans expected.

We inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression, two wars that weren't paid for, a broken health care system, and a 1950s energy policy. That was the gift from the Bush administration and the Republican majority in Congress. So there has been a lot to fix this year, and we've been about that business.

So here we are digging out from the Bush economy. It's time to get this done, but it's not going to happen overnight. It's time to fund our priorities and meet the needs of the American people.

Simply, Mr. Speaker, this rule is a good basis for the bill we will consider today and deserves to be supported by every single Member in this body.

I am very pleased and privileged to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House of Representatives.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the distinguished gentleman from California, I would like to yield to my friend from Texas and ask him a question.

It appears that my friend and I are like ships passing in the night. Both of us have been here during the period that Democrats have been in the majority, the minority, and the majority gain. When your party gained the majority, does my friend have a recollection of what the surplus was and the fact that there was a surplus?

I will yield the gentleman such time as to answer that question, and then I would like to ask the gentleman another question.

Absolutely. Reclaiming my time.

Reclaiming my time, I have yet another question.

When you lost the majority, what was the deficit? And I understand 9/ 11. I understand all of the things that took place. I also understand that had we never been in the Iraq war in the first place we wouldn't be here in this situation.

So tell me, if you can, my friend, what the deficit was when you lost the majority, and what in fact did President Obama inherit when we gained the majority again?

Well, I will do it rhetorically and allow that you answer on your own time.

The simple fact of the matter is when this administration took office, they had a $1.2 trillion deficit. And to continue along the lines of saying that nothing was done, I want you to know that you don't just create a situation that gives rise to eliminating that with a magic wand. The American public understands this dynamic and will be patient as we go forward to try and remedy this matter.

The gentleman spoke earlier to my colleague, Mr. Sherman. But before turning to him I want to look at some of the numbers. Job growth under the current administration is reversing a long downward spiral that started under the last President. The stimulus plan is working as planned. We are making sound investments in helping Americans find good jobs and getting this economy moving again.

The unemployment rate dropped last month. And the efforts of this Congress are helping people afford a home. And we need to do a lot more to un-seize the frozen dollars in these banks that are not helping small businesses, and that is what some of this financial regulatory reform is referencing.

Even the TARP program is working better than expected, and confidence has been restored to Wall Street, evidenced by the market and everybody's 401(k)s, and more than $200 billion is going to be returned to the government.

I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire from the gentleman from Texas if he has any remaining speakers.

I am the last speaker for this side, so I am going to reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for his side and has yielded back his time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak on this measure, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Would you tell me how much time I have, Mr. Speaker?

I shall not use all of that time, Mr. Speaker, but I am very much tempted, because my good friend--and he is my good friend--seems to fail to understand some of the things that we do and have done.

One of the things that I think would help some context and perspective is the subject of jobs, which should be and I believe is the concern of the 435 voting Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the six Delegates and Representatives from the Territories.

Let's not continue down the path of myth. When my mom was alive, she, like many of our mothers, became interested more in what we do in Congress by looking at it on television. At some point, I don't remember the day when I came home and she said, Y'all always talk about what happened before. She said, you know, Ford said Nixon did it, and Carter said Ford did it, and Reagan said Carter did it, and then Bush said Reagan did it. She said if you do that, then George Washington must have done it if you just keep going back all the time.

So let's start with some real numbers, not something that is created, and get one thing straight: When we talk about spending, whether it's Republicans or Democrats that spend on behalf of the American people, we rarely do anything other than talk about cost. We don't talk about benefits.

Toward that end, I would only use two, and I have a considerable list of areas that I could address that the Democrats have spent money on. I would ask any of our colleagues, do they feel that we should not have spent $31 billion in science, technology, innovation, math education, cutting-edge research and advanced manufacturing technologies and workforce training? That was passed by the House of Representatives.

I would ask my friend, is there anything about national security troops and veterans that they would not have spent? The fiscal year supplemental for the rest of 2009 provides our troops with everything they need to wind down the war that we shouldn't have been in in the first place, Iraq, and change the strategy in Afghanistan, requiring a progress report and making retroactive payment to 185,000 plus servicemembers whose enlistments were involuntarily extended since 9/ 11. That was signed into law. Would they not have spent that money?

Would they not have spent the money expanding the new GI Bill benefits to cover the full cost of college education for all children of fallen United States servicemembers? That was signed into law.

Would they not have spent the money on the 3.4 percent raise for our troops, strengthening military readiness, expanding support for military families such as health care and housing, focusing on our strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and redeployment from Iraq and military procurement reform? That was signed into law.

Would they not have spent the money on one of our top priorities of veterans groups, authorizing Congress to approve VA medical care appropriations 1 year in advance to ensure reliable and timely funding and prevent politics from ever delaying VA health care funding? That was signed into law.

Would they not have spent the money on strengthening quality health care for more than 5 million veterans by investing 15 percent more than 2009 for medical care, benefits claims processors and facility improvements? That was passed by the House.

I could go on the entire 15 minutes on that, but let me go to where I digressed from. Richard Nixon created during his administration and received credit for--and that's what these Presidents do--the creation of 9.4 million jobs. Under President Ford, under strenuous circumstances, his administration was credited with creating 1.8 million jobs.

Under President Reagan coming in with a near identical in many respects, absent 9/11. And a footnote right there. When my colleague mentioned Katrina, I am sure he knows that we haven't finished what's needed to be done with reference to the people on the gulf coast and specifically in the City of New Orleans. But to President Reagan's credit and during his administration and whatever tax decreases or however else it was achieved, I can assure you of the exact number of 16 million jobs. Under President George H.W. Bush, 2.5 million jobs. Under Bill Clinton, 23.1 million jobs. Under President Bush, and my friend from Texas' majority Congress, that at one point had the House, the Senate and the Presidency, under his administration, taking into consideration everything that he has talked about, 3 million jobs, the worst track record on record.

Now, what's needed here, Mr. Speaker, is some fair and straightforward accounting and not the off-budget stuff that I have heard here during the period of time that I am here and that I heard from my colleague.

What this bill will do and what this rule permits us to discuss is not off-budget kind of accounting. Is it sort of like the same kind of off-budget accounting that Wall Street does that my friends on the other side seem to think that we should do? No, fair and straightforward accounting.

My good friend from California that I served with on the Africa Subcommittee, when he was in the majority, we traveled together, an outstanding person and Congressperson. But when he came in here, he described that accountants say this is a moral hazard. I will tell you what a moral hazard is. A moral hazard is putting wars off-budget and not being prepared to pay for them and not asking the American people to make the necessary sacrifices in order that all of us, rich and poor, black and white, conservative and liberal, will pay our fair share to protect this great country of ours. Enough of all of this doom talking and finger-pointing. What is needed is a great consensus for all of us to be able to go forward to straighten out our Nation, and we can do this. I believe that we will.

One of the primary culprits of this current recession was a regulatory system that looked out for the wealth of Wall Street firms rather than the security of average American consumers. This legislation, however, recognizes that the strength of our financial system is not measured simply by the value of the Dow Jones, it's measured by the prosperity of the American people.

One of my friends, Phil Hare, who is here, says, it ain't the GDP, it's the j-o-b. I believe, Mr. Sessions k-n-o-w-s what I am talking about. Our constituents deserve to know that they are not going to be taken advantage of by the institutions to which they have entrusted their financial security. They deserve to know that our financial regulations will stop those institutions who engage in irresponsible practices

without placing an unnecessary burden on those who are acting in the best interests of their consumers.

They deserve to know that this Congress, Republican and Democrat, should not, and I believe the Democrats will not stand idly by, allowing monstrous financial institutions to put our entire economy at risk, rake in billions and shell out egregious bonuses while everyday Americans lose their life savings and struggle from paycheck to paycheck.

As to the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, we should give Barney Frank and the Financial Services Committee, Republican and Democrat, every credit for extraordinary work in these extremely difficult times for our country. This act makes reasonable and responsible changes to our financial regulatory system and enacts long- needed consumer protections. After months of debate, countless hearings and votes on this very floor, this rule will finally allow for its complete and timely consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Honest and Open Testimony Act, a bill that helps provide for an honest and open discussion regarding Don't Ask, Don't Tell by allowing active- duty members of the Armed Forces, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) members, to openly testify in Congressional hearings without fear of retribution. The Honest and Open Testimony Act expands existing whistleblower protections between members of the Armed Forces and Members of Congress to include communications from active-duty service members who testify concerning Don't Ask, Don't Tell in a Congressional hearing, as well as those who do so and disclose their sexual orientation.

The United States of America prides itself on having the finest military in the world because of the hard work, dedication, and sacrifices of its brave men and women in uniform. And yet, under the discriminatory law known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the talents and contributions of our GLBT service members continue to be ignored simply because of who they are. As you know, Don't Ask, Don't Tell was signed into law in 1993 by former President Bill Clinton as a compromise to allow gay and lesbian service members to serve in the military. To the contrary, Don't Ask, Don't Tell compromises the integrity of our troops and kicks them out to boot. For more than fifteen years, Don't Ask, Don't Tell has negatively impacted the lives and livelihoods of these military professionals and deprived our Armed Forces of their honorable service. This is not only a disservice to them, but to our country as a whole.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell hurts our troops, runs counter to the values of our Armed Forces, and threatens our national security. Since the law was implemented in 1994, over 13,500 qualified service members have been lost to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and counting. With each passing day, we lose approximately two service members to this misguided, unjust, and debilitating policy. Furthermore, Don't Ask, Don't Tell continues to undermine and demoralize the more than 65,000 GLBT Americans currently serving on active duty.

Keeping good troops is good policy, and our GLBT troops are among our most talented and dedicated. As the United States continues to work toward responsibly ending the war in Iraq and reengages the threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan, our GLBT service members offer invaluable skills that enhance our military's potency and readiness. They are linguists, aviators, medics, and highly trained soldiers who are involved in valuable operations that have nothing to do with their sexual orientation and everything to do with protecting our freedom and advancing our national security interests. Above all, however, they offer their lives to serve their country.

I am extremely proud of the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces and truly appreciate the countless sacrifices they continue to make every single day to protect this nation and the American people. They deserve better than Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In order for Congress to have an honest and open discussion about the relevance of the current law, as well as on how to best implement its repeal, its members must hear from those about whom Don't Ask, Don't Tell was written--active-duty GLBT troops. Now is the time to take action.

Madam Speaker, I realize that this issue is considered controversial, but it should not be. As Congress prepares to debate the future of Don't Ask, Don't Tell with hearings in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, we must ensure that we hear all sides of the issue and especially from active-duty GLBT service members. The Honest and Open Testimony Act helps achieve this by addressing a major barrier to an inclusive, transparent, and complete hearing process--fear of retribution for testifying honestly and openly about the consequences of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the Armed Forces. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill, which would bring us one step closer to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell once and for all and replacing it with a policy of inclusion and non-discrimination.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor an organization that has helped countless individuals in my community. The Pantry of Broward, Inc., is a not for profit organization that provides food and support services to low-income seniors and to grandparents raising grandchildren.

In Florida alone, there are 147,893 grandparents raising grandchildren, yet 8 percent of grandparent caregivers live in poverty, as do nearly 10 percent of all seniors. For those who live in Broward County, and the children who rely on them, the Pantry of Broward is an indispensible resource.

Each month, the Pantry of Broward delivers a 60 pound box of food items to hundreds of

seniors. However, the Pantry of Broward is much more than a food bank. They also provide seniors with transportation services, legal assistance, access to affordable medical care, and a slew of other resources that make life just a little bit easier for Broward's struggling seniors.

Whether an individual needs help finding affordable housing, is having trouble understanding complicated medical or insurance forms, or simply needs a pair of eyeglasses fixed, the Pantry of Broward is there to help.

Seniors in south Florida, like those around the Nation, have worked hard and provided for themselves and others their entire lives, yet often, despite incredible need, they are too proud to ask for a helping hand. For this reason, the Pantry of Broward provides assistance in a caring, dignified manner, mindful of their clients' privacy and self- esteem.

Madam Speaker, while we in Congress work to revive our Nation's economy, it is organizations like the Pantry of Broward that serve as a lifeline to the seniors and families in our districts struggling to make it from one day to the next. I am truly grateful for the services they provide to my constituents and commend them on their extraordinary work.