Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, this is such a fascinating debate that's taking place here on the floor today. I think that anyone that considers themselves connected in the country--and I'm not talking about being connected to wealth but connectivity in terms of communications--I hope you're tuned in, because this is a consideration about preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices.

Now I don't know how many of you have spoken to your kids, but I have to tell you, if you've had a conversation with any young person in your family, and I don't remember what the average age is of Congress, but talk to young people in your district. And I want to tell you, they will say, over and over and over and over again, the way they spoke to the FCC, over 2 million people contacting the FCC, over 90 percent of them saying, Leave the Internet alone. Leave it alone. Leave it open. Leave it accessible to everyone.

In just over 5 years, $250 billion has been invested by the venture capital community, which makes its home in my congressional district. And I have to tell you, I think if you took this amendment to Silicon Valley, when you go out there--and I know you travel out there--the next time, go there for an Internet 101 series, not for fund-raising, but go listen to people there. That's where the innovators are. And I have the privilege of representing them. They want an open, free, accessible Internet.

I think that your disdain for government is spilling over onto the Internet, and I would caution you to pull up the emergency brake on it, because if in fact corporations get their way instead of consumers, and there is any blockage of content or where consumers have to pay more because corporations are in control instead of consumers, there's going to be a revolution in the country. I would not fool around with an open, accessible Internet. You are barking up the wrong tree. You really are. This is a big mistake.

So you want to hate the government. You want to try and hurt agencies that carry out what the Congress does. That's where your party is. That's where your disdain lies. But I think this is a march to folly. I don't know if you really fully appreciated the Internet and what it represents and what it has done, not only for the people of our country but for people around the world. You wouldn't go near this.

If you suggested to anyone in Tahrir Square in Cairo that you were doing this, I think they'd laugh a lot of people off the floor of the House of Representatives. This is so wrongheaded. And it says to me that you don't get it; that you simply don't get it. Without some clear rules of the road--and believe me, what the FCC did is so light. I thought that they could have done, and should have done, more. Large corporations carve up the Internet into fast and slow lanes charging a toll for content and blocking innovators from entering the information superhighway. You know what? I want to be at your town hall meeting when you have to explain that to your constituents. They will have your heads for that. They will. This will supersede any other issue.

So, my friends, anyone that considers themselves in the know in the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, let's not turn the hands of the clock back. Let's be on the side of innovators, who weighed in at the FCC, and I as the ranking member placed all of those letters of support representing hundreds of organizations in our country, all the way from the Catholic Conference of Bishops in our country to TechNet.

Vote against this. This is a bad, ill-informed amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendments before us today that would prevent the FCC from moving forward in its efforts to preserve a free and open Internet. Over the past 15 years, the open Internet ecosystem has resulted in more than 3 million new U.S. jobs.

In just over 5 years, $250 billion has been invested by the venture capital community in industries reliant on an open Internet. During this time, we've seen innovative companies like Netflix, Skype, Amazon and eBay flourish. These Internet companies have created tens of thousands of jobs and new competition in areas like phone service, video and online shopping, not just in my District, but across the nation.

Without some clear rules of the road, large corporations can carve up the Internet into fast and slow lanes, charging a toll for content, and blocking innovators from entering the information superhighway.

I believe consumers, not corporations, should be in the driver's seat to pick the content they view, listen and watch over the Internet.

The FCC's actions to preserve an open Internet would ensure consumer choice, certainty and greater clarity in a debate that has gone on for almost a decade. The FCC's rules are important for Internet service providers as well as edge and content providers, so they may focus on investment, innovation, and job creation.

We must ensure the Internet remains a vital resource to improve the lives of Americans and everyone around the world for generations to come.

I stand united with my Democratic colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee, that these amendments represent bad process, they reflect bad policy for our nation and should therefore be rejected.

I urge my colleagues to oppose these amendments and protect a free and open Internet for generations to come.

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

Mr. Chairman, one of the things I admire the most about our country is our commitment and our love for democracy. We were founded on the ideal that it is the people who choose their government. We believe in the principle of one person, one vote; not $10,000 or $100,000 a vote. We believe in the free exchange of ideas to be able to decide which candidates deserve our votes.

But money, and lots of money, heaps of money from undisclosed sources, are having a corrosive influence on our political campaigns. Money distorts the voice of a particular point of view, making that voice seem louder, making it seem more influential, or making it seem more persuasive than it actually is.

We don't know who is saying what to whom. Is it Big Oil? Is it polluters? Is it the insurance industry? Is it the tobacco industry? All too often these distorted views come from corporate interests, and they try to undermine the public interest through campaign expenditures. These corporate interests can buy elections by throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars into a race for a particular candidate with attack ads against another.

Last year, sadly, the Supreme Court overturned landmark law and other centuries-old precedents aimed at limiting the influence of corporations in our elections. Now, today, we have stealth organizations formed for the sole purpose of running attack ads, and the American people don't have a clue who is footing the bills. The American people have a right to know who is trying to influence them, and if corporations want to try to persuade voters about their point of view, then they should stand behind their words.

Let voters judge the facts for themselves. Voters are smart. Let them make up their own minds on election day, as long as they have full and accurate information about the interests that are at stake.

So my amendment is a commonsense solution to a difficult political problem. It requires that any company that does business with the Federal Government disclose their political contributions. Period. It is simple, it is clear, it is fair, and it is called disclosure.

This amendment says if you are a Federal vendor receiving taxpayer dollars, you are required to disclose how much you spend to influence the political system. Why? Because with public funds come public responsibilities. My amendment honors the First Amendment and it places no limitation on political speech. It simply requires transparency.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on this amendment that's being offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), and I just want to say at the outset that I don't think any of this is a joke.

First of all, czars and czarinas are from Russia. This is the United States of America. And I think that throwing this kind of terminology around is really not befitting of the House and what we do. If we disagree with policy, and we do, we debate that.

If in fact there are people that work in the government that are policy advisers and have no legal weight to their position, so be it. Most frankly, every single one of us has them in our offices. Your chiefs of staff, your policy advisers on legislation, they don't carry any legal weight, but they are policy advisers to us.

This particular target is to one individual. One individual. This is very unusual where you go after one individual in the middle of a bureaucracy who is the chief diversity officer at the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission. This individual is in charge of expanding opportunities for women, minorities, and small businesses to participate in the communications marketplace.

Now, I think one of the things that absolutely goes to the core of democracy is how many voices speak to the many, whether there is media consolidation in this country or not.

There's some right-wing radio people that seem to dislike this person. I don't really agree with these right-wing radio talk show hosts, nor do I care to jump into what they dislike about this individual. But to bring something like this to the floor of the House, where an individual is working to expand opportunities for women, minorities, and small businesses, an appropriate role, participating in the communications marketplace, I think, is an amendment that is not worthy of the support of Members.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, I think that we need to start rethinking some of this. I can't help but think that campaign ads should just be played on the floor, get it out of everybody's system on this czar issue, and move on. But these are individuals that are carrying out their duties in the executive branch.

If you want to vote against expanding opportunities for women and minorities in the media, then do an amendment on that. Why saw this guy's head off? Because some talk show host says so?

So I think that this is poorly devised, poorly thought out, and does no grace to the House of Representatives.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Yes.

That's what's in the amendment.

Offered By: Ms. Eshoo

Amendment No. 576: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to protest the elimination of funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).

The Republicans are proposing to eliminate CPB's federal funding going forward. Without these funds, local stations would have to reduce or eliminate such valuable public programming as Sesame Street, the NewsHour and NOVA.

Every month, more than 170 million Americans experience the benefits of public broadcasting through 368 public television stations and 934 public radio stations, several of which are located in the Bay Area.

One example is San Francisco's KQED, which attracts more than 841,000 television viewers each week. Employing 275 full-time staff members and providing locally produced news programming, KQED has an important economic and cultural impact on the Bay Area community.

From theater and ballet to music, thoughtful public discourse, science an children's programming, the programming found on public broadcasting has set a world standard.

Public broadcasting is the best definition of educational television--it enriches our sense of the world and educates us.

Over the years, the commercial market strikes another image--reality TV; talking heads shouting past each other; and inane programming. If this is what some viewers want--fine--shouldn't we retain both?

We've done much work together to promote and preserve CPB against those who want to cut it out of the modern world of broadcast technology These are tough economic times, but what feeds the soul and informs our national intellect should be considered an important national resource.

I urge my colleagues to come together on both sides of the aisle and restore funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Allen R. Hughes, who passed to his eternal life on December 6, 2010 at the age of 101. A caring and committed family man, he blessed us with a century of steadfastness and sweetness.

Like the bee colonies Allen kept, the Hughes house was always a hive of activity. Children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, cousins and close friends swarmed around Allen, drawn to his good cheer. Allen was always on the move as well. ``Sitting under a tree was not for him,'' Allen's beloved son Rich noted. Allen loved the outdoors, and spent his time raising Shelties and bees, bird hunting and gardening. He was a devoted and active Mason, a pillar of the Nineveh Lodge in Olney. He enjoyed painting the world around him, even as he energetically took part in it.

Allen was blessed with wondrous qualities, with which he blessed us in turn. His selflessness and uproarious sense of humor touched all who met him, and his honesty and incredible work ethic strengthened and sustained his family and community. Few people exercise their hands and their hearts like Allen did. No doubt this was what enabled him to lead such a long, loving and healthy life.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Allen Hughes' full and vigorous life and extending our sincere condolences to his family. He is survived by his wife, Sue Harness Hughes, and her daughters, Jamie and Joyce; his extraordinarily devoted son Rich and Sandy; his grandchildren, Kate, Steve and Kristina; and his great- grandchildren, Lauren, Olivia and Lea. In a century of unprecedented change, Allen was a constant, always there for his family and friends, and the rock of his community. I'm proud to pay tribute to his extraordinary time in this world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Robert Sargent Shriver, founding Director of the Peace Corps and driving force behind the War on Poverty, who entered eternal life on Tuesday, January 18, 2011, just two days before the 50th anniversary of the inauguration of his brother-in-law, John F. Kennedy. Beloved by all who met him, Sargent Shriver embodied the greatness of his generation, devoting his 95 years to fighting for peace and against poverty.

The scion of a prominent Maryland family, Sargent Shriver received his bachelor's and law degrees from Yale before becoming a successful businessman, lawyer, and Newsweek editor. He met Eunice Kennedy and began managing the Merchandise Mart in Chicago, marrying Eunice in 1953. A savvy organizer and staunch civil rights advocate, Sargent Shriver quickly became both an indispensable part of the Kennedy family and an outstanding public servant in his own right. Kennedy called for service and sacrifice; Shriver answered and animated that clarion call.

A World War II Navy Lieutenant and Purple Heart recipient, Sargent Shriver understood service in his soul. When Kennedy created the Peace Corps in 1961, he handed Shriver the signing pen and the opportunity to direct a new force for peace and engagement with the world. Sargent Shriver undertook this effort with his typical energy and zeal, working tirelessly to bring a small measure of peace to the world, and a piece of the world to the thousands of young Americans who shouldered backpacks and the responsibilities of global citizenship. My son Paul was one of them, and his Peace Corps service in Nepal lit his life and continues to guide his vision and his values today.

``The Peace Corps door is open to all who are willing to enter,'' Shriver once said. ``All they have to do is volunteer.'' Many who

walked through that door began a life dedicated to service, including a number of colleagues in Congress--Senator Christopher Dodd, Congressmen Mike Honda, Sam Farr, John Garamendi, Steve Driehaus, and Thomas Petri. While critics scoffed that Sargent Shriver's fledgling organization wouldn't last five minutes, Shriver used his unparalleled organizational and motivational skills to shepherd and shape it for five years. As we prepare to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps next month, over 200,000 Americans will have dedicated themselves to the education, environmental protection, public health, and economic development of 139 countries around the globe.

As committed to progress at home as abroad, Sargent Shriver became the primary architect of President Lyndon B. Johnsons' War on Poverty. As Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, he created much of the framework of our modern social safety net, including Head Start, VISTA, Job Corps, Upward Bound, and Legal Services. For a time, he continued to direct the Peace Corps even while waging the War on Poverty. Twelve-hour days and seven-day work weeks meant little to Shriver when it came to helping people. His biographer Scott Stossel writes that Shriver's colleagues believed he was always ``expanding the Horizons of the Possible,'' in his own life and others.

Continuing his illustrious career, Shriver served with distinction as Ambassador to France. In 1972, he was the Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee, and he was a presidential candidate in 1976. In more recent years he aided his wife's work on the Special Olympics, and founded the Sargent Shriver Peace Institute, the Shriver Center at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and the Shriver Center on Poverty Law. For his lifetime of leadership and service, President Bill Clinton awarded Sargent Shriver the Presidential Medal of Freedom, joining Eunice who was a previous recipient. They became the only spouses to receive the award separately.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to extend our deepest sympathies to Sargent Shriver's family. He is survived by his five children, California's former First Lady, Maria Shriver; Robert Sargent Shriver III; The Honorable Mark Shriver; Timothy Perry Shriver; Anthony Paul Shriver; and 19 wonderful grandchildren.

Accepting the 1972 Vice Presidential nomination, Sargent Shriver invoked the words of the French Jesuit, Teilhard de Chardin:

One day after mastering the winds, the waves, the tides and

gravity, after all the scientific and technological

achievements, we shall harness for God the energies of love.

And then, for the second time in the history of the world,

man will have discovered fire.

With Sargent Shriver's help, America glimpsed the glow from that fire, and in his absence we must strive to discover it once again. I'm honored to pay tribute to one of the most faith-filled, compassionate, humane and effective public servants of our time. The Sargent Shriver legacy is an unparalleled, timeless inspiration to our nation's citizens and citizens of the world.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to what I think is really an unwise, unwarranted, and unfair effort to repeal the historic health care law which has brought much-needed insurance reforms to the American people.

For the first time in our Nation's history, Congress passed legislation to ensure that every American has a comprehensive health insurance plan just as Members of Congress have. We've reduced the deficit by $143 billion over 10 years and $1.2 trillion over 20.

I want to tell an important story which I think underscores why repeal is wrong.

Ronit Bryant in my district was battling stage four breast cancer-- that's the worst--when her HMO decided to stop paying for her treatment. In the middle of her treacherous ordeal through a mastectomy, chemotherapy, a bone marrow transplant, and radiation, she was also battling her insurance company in Federal court where she had to listen to lawyers argue over whether her life was worth saving or not. A woman of less strength would never have made it through this. I am proud to say that Ronit made a full recovery. She watched her children grow, and she went on to become the mayor of one of the major cities in my district, Mountain View, California.

So a 50 percent discount on prescription drugs for seniors makes sense. Prohibiting rescissions--what was done to Ronit, eliminating that makes sense. Allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance policy until the age of 26 makes sense. Thirty-five percent tax credits for small businesses make sense.

What the Republicans are doing today does not make sense. It's wrong for America; it's bad for Americans, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

I thank my colleague for organizing this evening. And I rise to talk to whomever is tuned in this evening to tell some stories. I think stories are really what relate more than anything else to what is going on in the lives of our constituents and the American people.

I want to take people back several years. It was 1996. I was a fairly new member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. And after having had meetings in my district with people in the disabled community, I learned something that I didn't know, and I shared it with many other Members of Congress. They were not aware of it. I don't think the general public was aware of it. And it was the following. And that is that buried in the fine print of insurance policies, in this case health insurance policies, was a cap on lifetime limits of benefits.

Now, that doesn't sound too menacing to begin with. But just think if any one of us, God forbid, were in a horrible automobile accident. We have seen what has happened to our colleague in Tucson, and the bills that are attendant to that kind of high-end of health care.

Certainly people in the disabled community understood this very well. So the more I probed, the more I learned.

Meanwhile, the actor, wonderful, optimistic and superb actor, Christopher Reeve, had endured a terrible, terrible accident as an equestrian. I think everyone remembers that; and they remember the courageous battle that he waged, not only for more research to be invested in our country, but the hope that stem cell research held. But he also understood this whole issue of limits in an insurance policy on total benefits that would be paid for by the insurance company.

And so it was at that time, 1996, that I introduced legislation to lift the lifetime limit on the caps, on the ceiling in health insurance policies. That effort has been going on since 1996. In 2010, the Democrats saw fit to place that legislation into the health reform bill that has become law.

So today, the law of the land right now, January 19, 2011, at 7:10 p.m. eastern standard time, no one has a limit on their benefits in their life insurance policies. So if someone is in a terrible accident, that won't be held against them. If someone has a chronic illness, a chronic illness with cancer, with whatever one might name, that will not be held against them.

I tell this story because we have heard some tall tales, some tall tales about what the health care legislation, now the law, contained. More than anything else, what the legislation is about is addressing what happens to people in their day-to-day lives, the stories that our constituents have told us.

I want to tell you another story. This is from Elaine from the town of Los Altos, California, in my district. This is what she wrote to me: ``This is the first time I have ever written to any government representative on any topic in my 50 years of existence.'' Elaine was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2006. It's a disease that we are all, all too familiar with. One in eight women will develop breast cancer in her lifetime.

Elaine wrote: ``Normally, when I feel that a service provider is price gouging or in any way treating me unfairly, I take my business elsewhere. This is what I did with my auto insurance, and this is how market forces are supposed to work.''

But Elaine couldn't do that because so few insurers would even take her. Most of them would not go near her.

The health insurance market, in my view, in so many of my constituents' view, has really failed our country.

We believe in markets. We believe in strong markets. We believe in competitive markets, but we don't believe that a market should be part of crushing human beings in terms of the rules that they write.

Elaine saw her rates increase by 94 percent over a 13-month period.

Let me repeat this: Elaine saw her rates increase by 94 percent over a 13-month period.

What Member of Congress can endure this?

And I have to say that those that have fought the hardest against this bill, now the law, are taking their health care coverage from the government as a government employee.

Now, I am proud to be part of my government. I will never run away from that. I am proud of what I do. I am proud of my profession. I always want to be uplifting to it. But I don't think that there is room for hypocrisy in this. These are great needs. Yes, Members of Congress have insurance coverage. And the way that we designed the bill was so that the American people could get what we have, to get what we have.

Look and listen to what Elaine is saying. Elaine's gross income increased only 4 percent as her insurance rates increased by 94 percent over a 13-month period. I don't think that this is sustainable, not for any working person in this country, not for any community and certainly not for our Nation and our national economy.

Health care represents a major sector of our national economy, and if we don't do something, as we did, about the rising, spiraling costs and the effect that it has on families and individuals, it will really tear them apart and bring them to their knees financially. So I am very proud of the vote that I cast on behalf of my constituents.

Was the bill complicated? Absolutely. For those that say it was a long bill, they have voted for plenty of trade bills around here, and the trade bills are 4,000 pages. I wonder if they have read that.

But this one, this one lands in the middle of a family so that they don't have the panic at night or the cap on the benefits if they are in a terrible accident, like Christopher Reeve, God rest his soul, or Elaine, in my district, that told her story to me.

Elaine's health is not a commodity that can be bought or sold on the open market. She doesn't have the option to go without health insurance if prices get too high. For Elaine, this is an issue of life or death.

So today I found it to be a rather sad day that any Member of Congress would stand on this floor and, with a sense of glee, say we are going to repeal the progress that America made.

For the first time in the history of our country, the Congress passed comprehensive health reform for every single American. That, to me, is a great source of pride. I think it is to Elaine; and I think if Christopher Reeve were here, he would say ``bravo'' as well.

So thank you to my colleague, Mr. Welch, to all of my colleagues that care so much about this that have

worked so hard on it and will work to defend this. This is for the American people. I think that they deserve to be rewarded.

They work hard; they play by the rules. No one should be crushed by unfair rules.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this. How proud I am to have voted as a Californian for the Americans that went and took care and did their job.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Goodwin Steinberg, a renowned architect and an active and affectionate community builder, who died on December 14, 2010. For half a century, Goody Steinberg designed and developed spaces for professional, civic and sacred uses. He was a giant who will be missed by his family, his friends, and everyone who was touched by his wise, wonderful and gentle ways.

As his grandchildren remembered their grandfather at his memorial service at Temple Beth Am--the magnificent structure he designed which is now home to some 1,600 families--their heartfelt words, and the very woodwork, paid eloquent tribute to this extraordinarily talented, creative, and caring community member. One after another, they spoke of how valued he made them feel, and how they knew that they were cherished. This love for family was the essence of Goody Steinberg, and we all benefited from it.

The projects that Goody designed are now iconic symbols of Silicon Valley and its development from the fruit-growing Valley of the Hearts Delight into the equally fruitful birthplace of ideas and innovation that it is today. Beth Am, designed so that his daughter could attend a religious school to learn Jewish traditions, is a much loved ``house of the people,'' the Hebrew translation of its name. Indeed, everywhere people gathered, Goody transformed into a house of the people. In his nearly half-century career as an architect, he designed the restoration of the Santa Clara County Courthouse, the Tech Museum of Innovation and the Del Monte Hotel in Monterey. The campus of Stanford University and the entire San Francisco Peninsula bear the indelible mark of his warm and welcoming designs, infused with light, love and laughter.

Goody served his community well, and glowed with justifiable pride in the community involvement and contributions of his family, proud of their generosity and accomplishments. His wife Geraldine served with distinction on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in the 1970s, and nothing made Goody happier than the day his son Robert joined the family business, Steinberg Architects, now an international architectural firm with offices as far afield as Shanghai.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Goodwin Steinberg's exemplary life and his multitude of accomplishments. I ask also that the entire House of Representatives extend its most sincere condolences to his wife of 66 years, Geraldine; his children Robert (and Alice Erber) of Palo Alto, Thomas (and Shaindel) of New York and Jerusalem, and Joan Laurence of Tsfat, Israel; his 11 grandchildren, and his late grandson Jacob Erber Steinberg; three great grandchildren; and sisters, Sylvia and Darlene.

On entering a synagogue, Jews begin the Ma Tovu, a prayer of awe and reverence for their sacred spaces, with the words, ``How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel!'' As Beth Am congregants enter the sanctuary he designed, they will forever be reminded of Goody Steinberg and the goodly tents he established everywhere he went. He built this city on rock and soul, from the ground up, and his family and his designs stand as magnificent memorials to Goody Steinberg's extraordinary creativity and humanity. America has been bettered in so many ways because of him.

Mr. Chairman, I'm deeply disappointed in the recently negotiated tax deal by the White House. While one can find items that are politically and practically attractive, in its totality, it borrows just shy of $1 trillion to pay for, amongst other items, expiring tax breaks for the top 2 percent of our country. My fear is that the 2001- 2003 Bush tax cuts will become permanent, and our fiscal future will

dim as America struggles with the largest transfer of wealth and debt creation in its history. We should, instead, be investing in capital formation, technological innovation, job creation, and education. These are the real building blocks for a strong future for all Americans.

I'm also deeply, deeply concerned about borrowing from the general fund to cover Social Security payroll taxes. This is the first time in the history of Social Security that the firewall between the general fund and Social Security is being taken down. This is dangerous. It's a bad precedent and one I believe we will all regret.

Mr. Speaker, I have opposed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy since its inception in 1993. I voted to repeal it earlier this year, and I hope to finally dispose of it with today's vote. This harmful policy is an affront to the principles of our Nation and a hindrance to our national security. For nearly two decades it has prevented qualified men and women from openly serving their country. The recently released Pentagon report makes clear that our men and women in uniform, along with the vast majority of Americans, recognize this policy as being discriminatory and want to see an end to the law.

Since the enactment of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, our Armed Forces have discharged nearly 14,000 troops because of their sexual orientation, including hundreds of Arabic and Farsi interpreters. These are critical positions requiring specialized skills and we are turning qualified people away in a time of severe troop shortages. The Army and Marine Corps have been forced to reduce standards of eligibility just to reach minimum recruitment levels for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This includes issuing `moral waivers' to people with felony convictions. Meanwhile, our men and women in uniform work side-by-side with openly gay soldiers from thirteen coalition partners, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, as well as U.S. officers and agents in the CIA, NSA, and FBI.

We have the most modern military on earth, with the exception of this harmful, discriminatory, and unnecessary policy. I'm proud to have cosponsored the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 and I look forward to its passage in the Senate. The bill will repeal the law, bring our military up to date and the law in-line with the principles of our country, and address this civil rights issue once and for all.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Irv Gellert, a dear friend who passed away on November 1, 2010 at his home in Los Angeles, California.

Irv had a great sense of joie de vivre and lived his life to the fullest. He was born in January of 1917 and grew up in the rural coal mining region of Pennsylvania, where his athletic abilities and interest in sports led him to become an all-star high school football player. After attending Temple University in Philadelphia, Irv enlisted in the Army and served his country with honor and pride during World War II. When the war was over and his service ended, he enrolled in New York University Law School and graduated with a law degree in 1949.

Not long after graduating from law school, Irv married his beloved wife Harriet. In 1954,

their only child, a son Jay was born, and Irv took on one of the great roles of his life as a parent. He was a loving role model to Jay, who called him his most admired person. Just three years after Jay was born, Irv was admitted to the California Bar Association and he spent the next 30 years as a respected practicing attorney in both New York and California.

Irv's competitive nature and enduring spirit compelled his interests throughout his life. He had a passion for sports and was a dedicated Los Angeles Lakers fan. He also held a deep-seated interest in politics and closely followed elections and the political process. In the recent midterm election cycle, Irv made use of the latest technology to keep track of races across the country by following the elections on his new Apple iPad device. Each election cycle, Irv lent his support to candidates he felt would best serve his local community as well as the country he was so proud of.

Later in life, Irv's most rewarding experiences came from caring for his ailing wife during her ten-year battle with Alzheimer's. It was during the time he cared for Harriet that Irv's true nature shone through. His love, coupled with his optimism and interminable selflessness, provided comfort to Harriet, to Jay, to their family and to their many friends affected by Harriet's condition.

Irv had a genuine love for life and humor about every aspect of it. He was the most positive person I've ever known, a man who demonstrated very clearly what he believed in by how he lived. He was a man of integrity and intelligence, grace and goodness.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our sincere condolences to Jay Gellert, the light of Irv's life and the son of sons. In Irv's passing, we've lost a great friend and patriot whose dedication and service made our nation a better place. We mourn his passing, but take comfort in the knowledge that his legacy lives on through the wisdom he shared, through the humor and keen observations he displayed, and through all the people he touched throughout his long and extraordinary life.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Joseph R. ``Joe'' Cerrell, iconic political consultant and one of the longtime pillars of the Los Angeles community, who died on December 3, 2010, in Camarillo, California. A political consultant before the profession existed, Joe Cerell filled his dynamic 75 years with public affairs, public relations and public service.

There's a classic photo of John F. Kennedy riding through a Los Angeles ticker-tape parade, with a grinning Joe Cerrell sitting right in the front of the car. That was Joe--always smiling, always, out front, always driving the process--and of course, always showered in adulation. For five decades, Joe's passion, principle and unrivaled political acumen influenced state and national politics, and his forward-thinking work truly helped shape the country and modern California, his adopted home.

Joe Cerrell was born June 19, 1935 in New York City, to Sal, a firefighter, and Marion Cerella, a switchboard operator. No doubt it's from his parents that Joe learned to put out political fires and to organize and connect people with legendary efficiency. Moving west to Los Angeles in his teens, Joe Cerrell finished high school and enrolled at USC. It was there, after founding the Trojan Democratic Club, that Joe began his lifelong political career. As a junior, he began arranging Kennedy's California visits, ultimately becoming Kennedy's California personal aide. Having caught the attention of Jesse Unruh, Joe soon found himself working on Unruh's State Assembly campaign, and later, on Attorney General Edmund G. ``Pat'' Brown's gubernatorial campaign.

After graduating in 1957 with a degree in Political Science, 24-year- old Joe was tapped by Unruh to head the California Democratic Party, the youngest ever to lead the state party. Joe then served as Kennedy's California campaign manager in 1960, an experience that ultimately led Joe to both his greatest love and greatest heartbreak. At Kennedy's urging, Joe became engaged to Lee Bullock, a fellow campaign worker. After Vice President Johnson asked them to postpone their wedding in order to staff an event, the couple finally celebrated their wedding. While on their honeymoon in Paris, Joe and Lee read about Kennedy's assassination and wept with the world.

Together with Lee, Joe founded his own political consulting firm in 1967, Cerrell Associates. Over the years, Joe advised the presidential campaigns of Kennedy, Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Lloyd Bentsen, John Glenn, and Al Gore. His statewide clients included the likes of Willie Brown and Jerry Brown, whom Joe first helped win a seat on the Los Angeles Junior College Board in a 124-candidate race. In later years, Joe's outstanding record of electing judicial candidates earned him the title of ``the judge-maker.'' Notable dignitaries such as the Dalai Lama and His Holiness Catholicos Vazken I and Catholicos Karekin I sought out Joe to manage their California tours, with the latter earning Cerrell Associates a ``Best Special Event'' Award from the Public Relations Society of America--Los Angeles. Their long list of clients was a testament to Joe's extraordinary management and strategic skills, and the firm expanded their influence by adding a Washington, D.C. office in 1983, eventually becoming the 43rd-largest independently owned PR firm in the country.

This success earned Joe countless accolades. He won a PRism Award for being an ``Outstanding PR Professional'' and Cerrell Associates was named ``Small Family-Owned Business of the Year'' by the Los Angeles Business Journal. Embracing his role as one of Los Angeles' most prominent political professionals, Joe served as president and on the boards of both the American Association of Political Consultants and the International Association of Political Consultants.

In addition to his professional work, Joe found time to become one of Los Angeles' most involved and civic-minded residents. He served on the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission during the 1984 Olympics and was chairman of the Hollywood Wilshire YMCA. Returning to his alma mater, he co-founded and taught at USC's Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics, and lectured widely across the country. For his years of outstanding contributions to the city, the Central City Association named Cerrell a ``Treasure of Los Angeles.'' But despite all that he did for his adopted hometown, Joe Cerrell never abandoned his New York roots, often requiring family and colleagues to play Frank Sinatra's ``New York, New York'' at events. That was the sense of humor and zest for life Joe brought with him everywhere.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deepest condolences to Joe Cerrell's wife, Lee; his children, Steve, Sharon and Joe; his sons- and daughters-in-law; and his seven wonderful grandchildren. Joe Cerrell embodied a time of political engagement and civility that made him one of the most sought-after political commentators and earned him friends across the political spectrum. He was a progressive pioneer, credited with helping ``to create modern political consulting'' by Professor Ann N. Crigler, Chair of USC's Political Science Department, and praised as ``a great champion of progressive political causes'' by former Vice President Al Gore. His death truly represents the passing of an era, and for me, the passing of a dear friend. I'm honored to pay tribute to Joe Cerrell for his incredible role in shaping our State and our country.

Mr. Speaker, the American Dream is the dream of immigrants. It is the belief that our nation invests in those who possess the best ideas, the best work ethics, and the smartest business plans. It is the faith that our actions, not our ancestry, determine what we can achieve. The American Dream is when the daughter of immigrants can grow up and serve in Congress.

Across our country, millions of children who have lived here most of their lives--and know no other home--are denied access to their American dreams. These children live under threat of deportation because of their parents' actions, not their own. It is wholly un- American to punish the child for the father's sins.

The DREAM Act updates our laws to reflect the principles of our nation and preserve access to the American Dream for these children. The bill creates a path to legalization, dependent upon good moral character, hard work and service. In other words, American values.

In my Silicon Valley District, many foreign-born entrepreneurs have built uniquely American businesses--Google, Intel, and Yahoo, to name a few. These companies and many like them have grown our nation's economy, spread our influence, and created hundreds of thousands of jobs for our citizens. These are the fruits of the American Dream.

With the passage of the DREAM Act, children across our nation will have the opportunity to be the next great business leader and create the next big idea. Our entire society will benefit from it. Please join me in voting yes.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Theodore C. ``Ted'' Sorensen, peerless wordsmith and presidential counselor, who died on October 31, 2010, only a week before the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's election.

Born in Lincoln, Nebraska, Ted Sorensen always mused about the impact that Lincoln--the President and the place--had on his life. He grew up immersed in the language and lore of Lincoln, excelling at speech and debate and engaging in impassioned discussions with his father, C.A. Sorensen, Nebraska's Attorney General and a close associate of the progressive Republican Senator George Norris. By the time Ted Sorensen made his way to Washington DC after graduating with honors from the University of Nebraska and its law school, his rigorous, homespun upbringing made him the perfect partner for Kennedy.

Joining Kennedy's staff as a legislative aide only days after Kennedy's election to the Senate, Ted Sorensen remained with him until the fateful day in Dallas that forever changed America. For a decade, they were inseparable. Kennedy called Ted Sorensen his ``intellectual blood bank,'' and Ted often said that he could finish Kennedy's sentences for him. Together they renewed our commitment to civil rights, averted a nuclear war, and began the race to reach the stars. Their unique and enduring relationship defined a decade, and in concert they called on a nation to serve and to sacrifice.

Though shattered by loss, Ted Sorensen did not let unspeakable tragedy silence him. He wrote and lectured widely on public affairs, publishing a bestselling Kennedy biography and his own memoirs. He practiced law, aided candidates and officeholders, and mentored a younger generation of writers. As one of the last living links to the Kennedy legacy, Ted Sorensen felt a special responsibility to share the spirit of his fallen friend. After Ted's passing, Caroline Kennedy thanked him for ``his guidance, his generosity of spirit and the special time he took to teach my children about

their grandfather.'' For 82 years, he remained committed to the same people and principles. In the final analysis, Ted Sorensen was sustained by the world of words, just as his words sustained the world.

How do we honor a man whose own enduring words pay him far greater tribute than ours ever could? Paying tribute to Nebraska Senator George Norris, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed the following criteria: ``History asks, 'Did the man have integrity? `Did the man have unselfishness? Did the man have courage? Did the man have consistency?' '' Like his lifelong political hero Norris, this much Ted Sorensen had--and more.

Much more than a counselor to a president, Ted Sorensen was the keeper of the Kennedy flame, and the conscience and unrivaled communicator of liberalism in America. Largely thanks to him, Kennedy campaigned in poetry and governed in the same manner. Ted Sorensen's speeches were poetry written in the meter of American memory, and it is fitting that he has become part of our national narrative himself as his prose takes its place in the pantheon of the past. Together with his friend and political patron, Ted Sorensen lit a fire, and the glow from that fire continues to truly light the world.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deepest condolences to Ted's wife, Gillian Martin Sorensen; his children, Eric, Stephen, Philip, and Juliet; his seven grandchildren; his brother, Philip; and his sister, Ruth. Ted Sorensen was the last and the best of the New Frontier, and words cannot adequately express his impact. We have lost the man who challenged our country to live up to its promise in liquid, living prose. His words and his work will live on in the muted marble of the Kennedy gravesite, and in the hearts and minds of all those who thrilled to his vision of a kinder, more just America. He and President Kennedy inspired me and drew me to public service, and I am especially blessed to pay tribute to this extraordinary American. Ted Sorensen has drafted the words and the blueprint; now, the trumpet summons us once more, and again the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans. We mourn his passing and we accept his final challenge to realize our Nation's best ideals.