Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest thanks and most sincere gratitude to Mandingo Tshaka, a resident of Bayside, New York, who first identified and advocated for the need to acknowledge the significant role that slave labor played in the construction of the United States Capitol several years ago. This week, Mr. Tshaka will be traveling to Washington, DC to witness his vision realized when Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid will unveil a series of plaques that honor and remember the contributions made by enslaved African Americans during the building of the Capitol. Thanks to his work and perseverance, the United States government will for the first time acknowledge the regrettable, humiliating, embarrassing, and humbling truth that slave labor helped to construct the very building that houses democracy in our Nation's capital.

In 2005, a Congressionally mandated study confirmed that slave labor was used extensively in the construction of the Capitol. The study confirmed what Mr. Tshaka already knew: One of the most egregious human rights violations in the history of the modern world helped erect the United States Capitol. It is to Mr. Tshaka's enduring credit that Congress will publicly and permanently recognize this fact this week.

Throughout his life, Mr. Tshaka has tirelessly dedicated himself to advocating for civil, minority and community rights. A lifelong resident of New York City, he has contributed immeasurably to the improvement of his community and of his country. While this week's ceremony will be bittersweet, I am pleased that Mr. Tshaka will be present to witness the fulfillment of his latest endeavor to promote civil rights and awareness.

I look forward to welcoming Mr. Tshaka to the Capitol for this historic unveiling and I am proud to see Congress recognize the truth behind the Capitol's construction. I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in recognizing Mandingo Tshaka and thank him for helping to make this week's ceremony a reality.

Madam Chair, several months ago I received a letter from a solider who lives in New York. The letter was very similar to those that many members of Congress receive from brave servicemen and women who reside in their districts. The letter spoke of multiple tours through Iraq and Afghanistan, of volunteering for more service even after completing enough tours to retire, and of the pride of a soldier who loves his country and is willing to sacrifice so much to defend it.

But this letter was not quite the same as those that many of us here in the Capitol receive from time to time. You see, despite serving his country for more than 20 years, despite volunteering to serve in a combat zone to defend America's principles of freedom from tyranny and from persecution, and despite receiving two bronze stars for meritorious service to his country, the gay soldier who wrote this letter is required by United States law to lie about who he is or face being discharged from the military.

For 16 years, ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' has placed an unthinkable and immoral burden on gay and lesbian servicemen and women, who, under United States law and unlike their heterosexual counterparts, must hide their sexual orientation and their partners from the military. Their partners are not eligible for the military spousal benefits to which the partners of heterosexual servicemen and women are entitled, including health care and better housing. Madame Speaker, ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' is, by definition, a discriminatory policy.

In the course of tonight's debate, several members have characterized the House of Representatives' impending vote to repeal ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' as a step forward for morality and equality. And it is. But, before we collectively pat ourselves on the back for a job well done, I would remind my colleagues that tonight's step forward is only a result of the giant leap backwards we took when we instituted the policy in the first place. Years from now, when our children read about ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' in their history books, what will they think of a government that so shamefully turned its back on gay servicemen and women in the interest of a political compromise?

Madam Chair, politics is a business of grays. Seldom do we have the opportunity to vote on legislation that is black or white, moral or immoral, right or wrong. Tonight is the rare exception.

For the thousands of gay servicemen and women who so bravely serve our country everyday but who live in constant fear of being discovered for who they are, for the principles of freedom and equality upon which the United States of America was founded, and in the interest of righting a wrong that has persisted for far too long, I rise in support of the amendment before us and for the patriotic soldier whose letter I enclose for the record; a letter in which he implores me: ``If and when this issue ever comes up for debate, and even for a vote in Congress, I respectfully ask you to remember all the gay military personnel who are right now risking our lives to defend the U.S. and its values.''

Madam Chair, that moment has come.

Hon. Gary Ackerman,

Member of the House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Ackerman: I am a captain in the United

States Army Reserve, and am presently deployed to

Afghanistan. I am writing to you with regard to the

military's so-called ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' (DADT) policy.

As you may know, there is currently a strong push in Congress

to overturn DADT--under which otherwise qualified gay men and

women are still being involuntarily dismissed from service--

and replace it with a policy of nondiscrimination on the

basis of sexual orientation. I strongly support this proposed

policy change. I would like to explain the basis for my

judgment.

I am a veteran of both the U. S. Navy Reserve and the U. S.

Army Reserve. In the latter I have served as both a sergeant

and as a commissioned officer. Since the terrorist attacks of

September 11, 2001 I have completed tours of duty in

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait. I was informed that I had

completed twenty good years of Reserve military service, and

had thus earned the right to retire. But I did not want to

retire with my country still at war. So I volunteered for

another combat zone deployment, and am serving once again in

Afghanistan. I have been at my current duty station------. I

recite this brief resume to let you know that I am no mere

observer of the military, but rather someone who has

dedicated much of my life to our national defense.

Congressman Ackerman, I am also one of the many gay

military personnel who have served our country faithfully in

these times of terrorism and war. I want to give you my

personal perspective on why DADT is so wrong. First of all,

it is widely recognized that a married service member's

relationship with his or her spouse has a profound impact on

that service member's fitness for duty. Thus, straight

married service members are free, within the limits of

resource availability and operational constraints, to

maintain communications with their spouses. In fact, such

communication is actively encouraged. Regular phone calls, e-

mail, and postal letters really help both the service member

and spouse get through the strain of combat zone deployments

in particular.

Many gay service members have committed partners who, every

day, face the same stress and make the same sacrifices as do

their straight counterparts. But because of DADT, gay service

members and their partners have to constantly worry that an

overheard telephone call, an intercepted e-mail message, or

other type of compromised communication could lead to a

degrading, career-destroying investigation. It is wrong, I

believe, to place such additional burdens on the back of

American patriots.

I write of these matters from personal experience. When the

9/11 terrorist attacks occurred I was in a serious long-term

relationship. But the extensive post-9/11 active duty I

performed put a serious strain on this relationship. The

relationship finally fell completely apart during my first

Afghanistan deployment in------.

As you may know, the military has seen a troubling increase

in the service member suicide rate since 9/11. Furthermore,

the loss of a serious relationship is one of the critical

risk factors that may contribute to such suicides. I

experienced this particular risk factor and my situation was

compounded by its occurrence in a war zone. Six years later,

I can still vividly remember cradling my government-issue

pistol in my hands and fighting the urge to blow my own

brains out.

I made it through that crisis. I completed my mission in

Afghanistan successfully, and in fact was decorated with a

Bronze Star Medal at the conclusion of that tour. I went on

to earn a second Bronze Star Medal in Iraq two years later,

and was promoted to------ shortly after that.

What made that crisis particularly difficult was the

isolation imposed on me as a result of DADT. A straight

Soldier in a comparable crisis could turn to his commander,

his first sergeant, or a ``battle buddy'' for help and

advice. But such avenues are legally closed to gay troops. If

I, for example, had shared the details of my situation with

my commander--a decent and honorable man--he would have been

legally obligated to have initiated an investigation that

would have heaped even more stress upon me, disrupted my

unit's mission, and ultimately destroyed my career.

I know that many would say that a gay service member in

such a situation could go to a chaplain in confidentiality. I

have great respect for our military chaplains and for all the

good work that they do. But I also believe that no service

member should feel forced to see a chaplain as his or her

only option. Every service member should have the right to

speak freely with a commander, a trusted noncommissioned

officer, or a battle buddy. I assert this not only as an

individual Soldier, but also as an officer with extensive

experience as a platoon leader and company commander. When I

have been in these command positions, I have had Soldiers

share with me some very personal information about their

families and home lives. I was glad that these Soldiers

trusted me, and this bond of trust and openness enabled me to

give each individual the counsel or moral support that was

needed. But what about gay troops? They are legally deprived

of such a relationship with a commander, a senior

noncommissioned officer, or a battle buddy. This is wrong.

These gay troops--especially those experiencing the stress of

combat zone duty--deserve access to such relationships. The

DADT policy shackles the hands of leaders like myself and

prevents us from properly supporting all our troops. This

policy puts service members and their loved ones at risk.

DADT is a shameful blot on our national honor.

I know that many are wary of a repeal of DADT. Perhaps

some--particularly those who oppose homosexual conduct on

religious grounds--see such a policy change as the equivalent

of governmental approval of homosexual conduct. But this is

not so. Let me strike an analogy. Many religious individuals

are opposed, on biblical grounds, to divorce and remarriage.

But persons who have divorced and remarried are plentiful in

the armed services, and many serve alongside very

conservative religious persons every day. Respecting

divorced-and-remarried persons as military professionals does

not mean one agrees with their personal life choices, or that

the government is advocating such choices. To me, the main

issue is that we respect personnel who serve their country

honorably and who act with responsibility and integrity in

their personal lives. For example, in the military we will

punish a ``deadbeat dad'' who neglects to pay his child

support, but we support and respect the divorced father who

stays committed to his parental responsibilities. I believe

that we need to take a comparable stance towards gay service

members.

There are also some who claim that repealing DADT will

negatively impact morale and discipline in our armed

services. But I have never seen a single shred of empirical

evidence to support such assertions. In fact, the available

evidence suggests that treating gay and straight troops

equally has no negative impact on military forces. Consider

the fact that many of our key allies in current combat and

security operations--nations such as the United Kingdom,

Canada, and Australia--do not discriminate on the basis of

sexual orientation in their armed services. These fighting

forces continue to perform admirably. Furthermore, troops

from these and other nondiscriminatory nations live and serve

side by side every day with U.S. troops in war zones. On this

current tour, for example, I personally have shared living

and bathing facilities with uniformed personnel from

Australia, Canada, Denmark, Spain, and the United Kingdom--

never have I seen a U.S. serviceman run shrieking from the

showers because he feared that he might encounter an openly

gay individual from one of these allied nations. Last year I

met an openly gay chief petty officer from the Australian

navy. He had served as part of a U.S.-led multinational team

in Iraq. He told me that not only was his presence no problem

for the Americans, but they decorated him with a U.S. medal

at the end of his tour! Surely if Americans can accept a gay

Australian, they can also accept gay fellow Americans. People

who claim that the U.S. military cannot manage a policy of

sexual orientation nondiscrimination are not only ignoring

the realities of current operations, but they are also

essentially saying that American service personnel are less

professional than those of the U.K., Canada, and other

nondiscriminatory nations--I consider such an assertion to be

a highly offensive insult.

Of course, my argument ultimately leads to a logical--and

fair--question: How do we manage this change in policy? The

answer is simple. Hold gay service members to exactly the

same standards we hold straight service members. If gay

individuals were to commit acts of sexual harassment, or

engage in any other type of activity that goes contrary to

military order, we would discipline them appropriately--and

separate them from the service if necessary. This happens to

straight service members when necessary; I myself once had to

discipline a straight male noncommissioned officer for his

inappropriate behavior towards a junior female Soldier. This

NCO accepted my counsel, corrected his behavior, and

completed his tour of duty successfully. On the other

hand, those gay individuals who conduct themselves with

honor and dignity, and who demonstrate respect for their

fellow service members, would continue to do their jobs.

This is exactly the policy that coalition militaries, many

U. S. police departments, and dozens of civilian

corporations have been following successfully for years.

Are we really to believe that this course of action is

beyond the capability of the U.S. military?

In fact, I believe that the demise of DADT will happen as

smoothly and quietly as did similar policy changes in the

militaries of allied nations. Gay troops who have been

behaving in a professional manner prior to the demise of DADT

are not suddenly going to begin engaging in outrageous or

disruptive behavior. Today's gay troops, despite the burdens

of DADT, are putting their lives on the line every day to

defend this country; many of us have been tested in Iraq,

Afghanistan, Somalia, and other challenging locations. If the

military gets rid of DADT, we will continue to do our jobs

and take care of our battle buddies; we and our commanders

will simply have a terrible burden lifted from our shoulders.

Congressman, after more than two decades of military

service--at sea and on land, from the Cold War era to the

Global War on Terror, in joint service and multinational

environments--I think I know the women and men of our armed

forces pretty well. I can tell you that every day U. S.

service members overcome barriers of difference--difference

in race, ethnic heritage, religion, regional origin, gender,

socioeconomic class, and other areas. Sexual orientation is

just another element in this complex equation. We are able to

overcome all these types of difference and form cohesive

teams by focusing on the basics: mutual respect, a solid work

ethic, personal integrity, and commitment to our common

missions. We are also able to recognize that a person whose

difference may initially unsettle us may also possess a

critical skill, a body of knowledge, or a depth of experience

that we need to accomplish these common missions. Can we

afford to lose a fluent Arabic linguist because she is a

lesbian? Can we afford to discard a combat seasoned

infantryman because he is gay?

I have enclosed with this letter some documentation from my

combat zone service. My contributions have been modest

compared to the heroism shown by many of my sisters and

brothers in arms. Still, I am proud of what I have achieved.

I leave it to you to look at my record and determine whether

or not the military would be better off if I--and, for that

matter, thousands of people like me--were to be involuntarily

dismissed from duty.

I am an ordinary guy who grew up in New York. My dad is a

retired New York City cop who was deeply impacted by the 9/11

terrorist attacks. Like any other deployed Soldier, I call my

folks at least once a week, and they worry about me just like

the parents of any Soldier. I don't want to turn the military

into some sort of gay utopia. I just

want gay Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast

Guardsmen--together with our loved ones--to have the sort of

peace of mind that our straight sisters and brothers take for

granted.

Congressman Ackerman, I read on your Web site about how you

stood up for Soldiers who were not getting their combat zone

tax exemption in Iraq. So I know you are a leader who

believes in taking care of the troops. Sir, I believe that

now is the time to give troops like me relief from the

injustice of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' If and when this

issue comes up for debate, and even for a vote, in Congress,

I respectfully ask you to remember all the gay military

personnel who are right now risking our lives to defend the

United States and its values. If you have any questions or

comments about anything I have written, you may contact me

via e-mail. And please feel free to share this letter and its

enclosures, including my contact information, with any

individuals or organizations whom you deem appropriate.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the Murphy Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to repeal ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.''

The time to end this absurd policy is long past due. Since it was implemented in 1994, ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' has resulted in more than 13,000 gay and lesbian servicemembers being discharged for no reason other than their sexual orientation. As the United States has fought wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, hundreds of mission-critical troops, including crucial Arabic and Farsi linguists, have been discharged because the Department of Defense believed they were gay. Such blatant discrimination is both morally wrong and, from a practical perspective, self-defeating.

Last year, I received a letter from a gay soldier from Long Island who has bravely served our nation for more than twenty years in two branches of our military. Throughout his numerous tours of duty in Afghanistan and in Iraq, he has earned multiple bronze stars. Although he could retire, he did not want to leave the military when our nation needed him most. So, he volunteered for another combat zone deployment.

In his letter, this soldier told me that he has served side-by-side with gay soldiers from the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia and has seen no evidence to suggest that these nations, which have no discriminatory policies against gay and lesbian servicemembers, have a problem with unit cohesion. In fact, an openly gay officer from Australia with whom he served was decorated with a U.S. medal at the end of his tour.

This soldier concluded by asking if, after looking at his service record, I thought the military and our nation would be better off without his service. My answer is absolutely not. I thank him for his service and proudly cast my vote to allow him and all other gay and lesbian servicemembers to continue their service to our nation without living in fear of being discharged for simply being who they are. Our service men and women deserve a policy that honors the principles they protect. I stand with our nation's principles. I support the Murphy amendment.

I rise in enthusiastic support of this historic, important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this historic day in strong support of the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010, H.R. 4872.

Let me be perfectly clear: all Americans should have access to affordable and quality health-care coverage. For too long, drastically needed health-insurance reform has been delayed. I'm proud that the overdue reform of our health-care insurance system has finally begun. Many of us, including Members of Congress, enjoy excellent health-care coverage. But far too many people have inadequate coverage, including over 70,000 of my constituents who are completely uninsured. And for those of us with coverage, the status quo is unsustainable and costly: Without health insurance reform, the insurance premium for an average family is expected to rise from $13,000 today to $24,000 in less than a decade. Mr. Speaker, my constituents want reduced costs, more choices and expanded coverage.

I support this landmark legislation because it changes the way that insurance companies currently ration medical care: The legislation we are about to pass would require all plans to eliminate coverage denials because of pre-existing conditions, eliminate dropping coverage when individuals become sick, eliminate annual and lifetime caps on how much can be spent on care, and eliminate exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses. Opponents of this bill would rather have the big health-insurance companies dictate the rules. But I think all Americans deserve these basic protections from their health-insurance plans, and these important guarantees will improve the coverage for nearly all those who already have insurance--even those Americans who are extremely satisfied with their current plans.

The Act starts with what works well in today's health care system and fixes the parts that are broken. No one has to give up the health care they enjoy today--everyone can keep their current health plan, doctors and hospitals. New state marketplaces called exchanges will allow uninsured individuals to shop among a large number of private plans with a core set of benefits. For the first time ever, American families--even those who keep their current health insurance--will benefit from no longer having to worry about losing health coverage because of a new or lost job. The bill finally brings the type of health insurance reform that Americans need and deserve.

Many opposed to comprehensive health insurance claim there are no immediate benefits to these bills; that somehow nothing happens until the exchanges are set up. Mr. Speaker, here are just some of the immediate benefits that take effect this very year: small businesses will receive tax credits for offering health insurance to their employees; seniors who fall within the infamous Medicare prescription- drug donut hole will receive a $250 rebate; people who have been denied health-care coverage because of a pre-existing condition will be able to get affordable coverage through temporary high-risk pools; children will no longer be callously denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition; annual limits and lifetime limits on the cost of care will start to be prohibited; and also this year, insurance companies will no longer be able to take away an individual's coverage because they get sick.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the previous Administration and the former leadership of the House of Representatives never acknowledged the moral or economic costs we pay every day for our failure to make health coverage affordable and accessible for everyone. Today, that ends. Today we recognize that more people with good coverage saves lives and saves costs. Today we unequivocally state that people should not have to go bankrupt to pay their medical bills. And today we finally realize that no one should have to go to an emergency room just to receive routine medical care. I am proud to be voting today to make sure that health-care insurance reform is putting these essential principles into action.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010, H.R. 4872 so that all Americans will have access to health care.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Howard Weitzman, who served as the Comptroller of Nassau County, New York from 2001 through 2009.

When Howard first took office, Nassau County faced an unprecedented budget crisis. Together with the County Executive, Howard brought Nassau County back from the brink of bankruptcy, balanced the county's budget, and turned deficits into surpluses; a feat made more remarkable when considering he engineered Nassau County's fiscal turnaround without a tax increase for three consecutive years.

During his eight year tenure, Howard enhanced the reputation of the Comptroller's Office and helped to restore Nassau County residents' trust that their local government worked for their best interests. Under his stewardship, Nassau County recovered millions of dollars

for taxpayers by exposing waste, fraud, abuse and misspending by agencies and vendors that did business with the County. He pioneered the launch of the NassauRx Card, an innovative prescription drug discount program that, to this day, provides savings off retail prescription drug prices. To date, the NassauRx Card has saved Nassau residents more, than $12 million.

Prior to becoming Comptroller, Howard served as the Mayor of Great Neck Estates, where he and his wife, Susan, have resided for 28 years. He is a Certified Public Account, a former national healthcare partner at KPMG, and the paragon of a true, dedicated public servant. Howard's years of selfless service to his community are exemplary and his many achievements on behalf of Nassau County residents are worthy of recognition. I ask all my colleagues in the House of Representatives to please join me in honoring Howard Weitzman and thanking him for his service.

I thank the chairman.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I am frankly astonished that the resolution has even come to the floor. I am afraid some of our colleagues either misunderstand the plain text of the War Powers Act or would like the House to initiate a legislative version of the so-called ``memory hole'' described by George Orwell in his foreboding novel 1984. The War Powers Act provides that in the event U.S. forces are engaged in hostilities without either a declaration of war or a specific statutory authorization, a concurrent resolution can be considered to force the withdrawal of our troops. An important piece of law to be sure, but one that is wholly irrelevant to the actual circumstances under which our troops are currently fighting.

Like many others in the House, I was present on September 14, 2001, when the House passed House Joint Resolution 64, to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the then- recent attacks launched against the United States. The vote, I would remind you, was 420 in favor and one against. I would note that the gentleman from Ohio, along with myself, was present and voted aye, as was the gentleman from Texas, as were 420 of us.

I would like to quote from that resolution which we are seeking to deny existed, which became Public Law 107-40 on September 18, 2001. It says, quote, ``That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.''

Members may like or dislike the war in Afghanistan. They may think the President's new strategy is wise or foolish. They may regard the costs of the war as bearable or not, but they are plainly not entitled to argue that the hostilities were not pursuant to specific authorization by the United States Congress.

The 107th Congress authorized the use of force. The President of the United States signed that authorization into law. If a Member of this House is opposed to the war, and I am sympathetic to such views, then the proper remedy is to pass legislation to mandate withdrawal through the Congress under regular order.

They can likewise vote against the annual and supplemental appropriations that fund the war.

What Members ought not be able to do is to waste 3 full hours of the House's time debating a resolution founded, at best, on a mistake and, at worst, a willful intention to pretend that recent history that we did authorize this war by a 420-1 vote can be dropped into the ``memory hole.''

No matter what Members believe about the war in Afghanistan, this resolution deserves to fail.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of a sanctions bill

that I believe will strengthen the Obama administration's ability to conduct effective diplomacy. The world, and I mean both our allies and others, needs to know that the U.S. Congress is dead serious about sanctions should diplomacy fail to resolve the real concerns about Iran's nuclear program. For those who worry that sanctions may lead to conflict, I would suggest that the opposite is true. With Iranian proliferation on the horizon, what is feckless is reckless. If you don't want war, it seems to me that you absolutely must back the toughest possible political and economic sanctions.

It is true that sanctions alone are almost certainly not going to be sufficient to force the Iranian regime to change course. But if we are serious about stopping Iran's race for nuclear capability, we must apply the maximum possible pressure by enhancing our capacity for unilateral sanctions, as we're doing today, by implementing crippling multilateral sanctions, and by developing a strategy that applies more comprehensive pressure than just diplomatic engagement followed by sanctions.

President Obama's offer of direct engagement with Iran already helped to heal a variety of political woes, but by itself, diplomacy and political and economic sanctions may still leave too much initiative in Iranian hands. If the Iranians remain recalcitrant and sanctions are applied, no matter how crippling--and I want to make it perfectly clear that I want them to be absolutely suffocating for the regime--the initiative is still left to the ayatollahs to decide when they've had enough.

Tragically, I suspect President Obama is soon going to have to decide whether an Iranian nuclear weapon is truly unacceptable in the full meaning of that word and with the full knowledge of what that means. The best thing that we can do to help avoid that terrible moment of truth is to act affirmatively on the bill before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 890) welcoming the Prime Minister of the Republic of India, His Excellency Dr. Manmohan Singh, to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and of the U.S.-India relationship. Next week, the Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, will come to Washington for a State visit, and I am pleased that with this resolution, the House will offer him its own welcome.

Prime Minister Singh has worked hard to improve our already strong ties and has courageously already taken political risks for our bilateral relationship that few others would venture. But when the Prime Minister put his government and his career on the line, it wasn't for us, though his victory has certainly proved to be to our advantage. No, Prime Minister Singh took his chances for India, for its future and for the fulfillment of that country's enormous potential.

And our partnership is built on this foundation: that India's rise as a great power in Asia and as a global player advances critical American interests ranging from the promotion of democracy and democratic values, to improving stability and security throughout all parts of Asia.

We do not fear a growing India for one simple reason: India's values are our values. India is a real democracy with real institutions that are subordinate to the rule of law. India, though ready to defend itself, doesn't start wars or harbor terrorists. India, though as fastidious as any state about protecting its sovereignty, can be relied upon to keep its word once committed to a treaty or an international agreement. India struggles to preserve its tradition of religious, cultural, and ethnic pluralism. India safeguards sensitive technologies. India fights terrorism.

We do not see ourselves when we look at India, though this Nation has benefited immensely from Indians who have become Americans. India is vastly larger in population, vastly older in history, and vastly more complex culturally with some 2,000 ethnicities and 29 major languages.

We do see similarities. We do see a nation committed to lifting itself by its own means. We do see a nation open to the world, and we do see a nation committed to the same vision of peace and security that has guided our own Nation.

There are, as to be expected, differences between us. Some of them-- and I would note particularly the issue of Iran--are very serious. But as nations committed to a relationship of equals, a relationship of mutual benefit and mutual respect, I believe we can work through our differences and achieve enormous progress in many areas of our mutual concern.

I am delighted that Prime Minister Singh, a man who is one in a billion, is returning to the United States, and I am proud of the House today in offering him such a well-deserved and warm welcome.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Speaker, it's now my pleasure to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House, 1 elastic minute.

I thank the gentlelady for her support and endorsement of the resolution and her wonderful comments; and we yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 212) expressing the sense of Congress on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of historic events in Central and Eastern Europe, particularly the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, and reaffirming the bonds of friendship and cooperation between the United States

and the Slovak and Czech Republics, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for introducing this important resolution that recognizes the historic events in Czechoslovakia in 1989 and enables Congress to reaffirm its strong friendship and support for the people of the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic.

Twenty years ago, on November 17, communist riot police broke up a peaceful pro-democracy demonstration in Prague, brutally beating many of the student protesters.

Rather than silencing the students, however, these violent reprisals led to an avalanche of protests between November 17 and December 29 that ultimately led to the fall of the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia.

In the days after the initial protest, a pro-human rights group, known as Charter 77, united with other groups to become the Civic Forum, a strong voice calling for reform, civil liberties, and rights for all citizens.

Led by dissent playwright Vaclav Havel, the Civic Forum succeeded in forcing the communist government to resign, paving the way for Havel's election on December 29 as the President of Czechoslovakia.

Known around the world as the Velvet Revolution, these historic events further cemented the collapse of the communist regimes throughout Central and Eastern Europe, and helped to precipitate the end of the Cold War.

In June 1990, Czechoslovakia held its first democratic election since 1946, bringing into power its first completely noncommunist government in over 40 years. In the 20 years since these momentous events, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic have become strong, vibrant democracies, close NATO allies, and staunch friends of the United States.

They continue to contribute to international peace efforts, including by providing troops and assistance under NATO command in Afghanistan.

Millions of Americans trace their roots to these two great nations, and the United States is strengthened by their rich cultural heritage and their many significant achievements and contributions.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution acknowledges and commemorates the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia 20 years ago this month. It also reaffirms the bonds of friendship and cooperation between the United States and the Czech Republic.

I urge all of our colleagues to support this important resolution.

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

I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, it's now my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, the distinguished chairman, Jim Oberstar.

I'm happy to yield an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note at this time that all of us here in the House bask in the obvious and well-felt pride that has been expressed especially from our Czech and Slovak colleagues that are here. Congratulations to them as well as in a few moments we pass this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 100th birthday of Morris Fein on Saturday, November 28, 2009.

Morris Fein is more than a friend; he is an inspiration and a living testament to the American Dream.

Frank and Kate Feintuch migrated from Poland and arrived at Ellis Island aboard the Polonia in 1911 with two-year-old Morris. A product of the New York City public school system, Morris began his education at PS 13 and graduated from Stuyesant High School at

the age of 16. Becoming the first member in his family to graduate both high school and college, Morris obtained his Bachelors Degree in History from the City College of New York and graduated with a commission as Second Lieutenant of the ROTC.

In 1936, Morris met and married Vera Rothman, with whom he celebrated his seventy-second wedding anniversary in 2008 before her passing. Morris and Vera lived in Astoria, Queens, in a one-bedroom apartment. They not only raised their three children--Sheldon, Benjamin and Roselyn--there, but Morris also operated his tax practice from the apartment on the weekends. In 1954, the family moved to a three-bedroom single-family home in Flushing, Queens.

To support his family, Morris worked in excess of sixty hours per week, holding at minimum three jobs at any given time. For over 40 years he served as an Investigator/Inspector for the New York State Department of Agriculture, spearheading many investigations of major consequence in the Jewish and secular communities throughout New York State.

Through out his life, Morris has always strongly identified with his Jewish heritage. A strong believer in ``giving back'' to the community, he played a vital role in creating and maintaining the Queensborough Hill Jewish Center, a house of worship and education for his community. He served as a member of the Executive Board and Board of Trustees, including President and Treasurer, at the Synagogue. He also served as the long-term Financial Secretary and then President of the Hrubishower Sick & Benevolent Society; and was a member of the Queensborough Hill Synagogues Men's Club.

After suffering a hip injury in 2002, Morris and his wife moved to an independent living facility in Huntington Terrace, NY, where he currently resides. A member of the South Huntington Jewish Center in Melville, he serves as President of the ``Residents Board'' at Huntington Terrace/Brandywine Senior Living.

Morris will be celebrating his 100th birthday with his children, Sheldon, Benjamin and his wife Judy Sharmat, Roselyn and her husband Edward Rudofsky; with his grandchildren and their spouses, Lee Rudofksy, Gayle Rudofsky, Steven Fein, Leonard Fein, Dr. Samual Sharmat, Soraya, Juliana and Alissa; and with his great grandchildren, Ethan Fein, Jim Fein, and Sophia Sharmat.

Madam Speaker, I call on all my colleagues in the House of Representatives to rise and join me now in extending our congratulations to Morris Fein on the grand occasion of his 100th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in strong support of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this historic day in strong support of the Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962.

Let me be absolutely clear: every single American should have access to affordable and quality health-care coverage. For too many years, drastically needed health-insurance reform has been delayed. I'm happy to say the long overdue reform of our health-care insurance system has finally begun. The status quo is unsustainable and costly: Without health insurance reform, the insurance premium for an average family is expected to rise from $11,000 to $24,000 in less than a decade. Americans want reduced costs and more choices.

Mr. Speaker, I support this landmark legislation because it changes the way that insurance companies ration medical care: The measure would require all plans to eliminate coverage denials because of a pre- existing condition, eliminate dropping coverage when individuals become sick, eliminate annual and lifetime caps on how much can be spent on care, and eliminate exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses. All Americans deserve these basic protections from their health-insurance plans, and these important guarantees will improve the coverage for nearly all those who already have insurance--even those Americans who are extremely satisfied with their current plans.

The act starts with what works well in today's health care system and fixes the parts that are broken. No one has to discard the health care they enjoy today--everyone can keep their current health plan, doctors and hospitals. A new marketplace will allow individuals to shop among a large number of private plans or choose a public insurance option. For the first time ever, American families--even those who keep their current health insurance--will benefit from no longer having to worry about losing health coverage because of a new or lost job. The bill finally brings the type of health insurance reform that Americans need and deserve.

I also strongly support this bill because the 47 million uninsured Americans, the 2.6 million uninsured New Yorkers and the 78,000 uninsured neighbors in my congressional district will have access to affordable, secure and quality health-care coverage instead of having to rely on the local hospital emergency room. Most recent administrations never acknowledged the moral or economic costs we pay every day for our failure to fix this problem. Fortunately, President Obama has made comprehensive health-insurance reform his top priority. I am proud to be voting today to make sure that health-care reform contains costs and is affordable; puts our country on a clear path to universal coverage; provides portable coverage; ensures choice of physicians and health plans; promotes prevention and wellness; improves the quality of care, and is fiscally sustainable over the long-term. Putting these principles into action is not only doable; it is absolutely essential.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the Affordable Health Care for America Act so that all Americans will have access to health care.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this historic day in strong support of H. Res. 903--the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3962--the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

Let me be absolutely clear: every single American should have access to affordable and quality health-care coverage. For too many years, drastically needed health-insurance reform has been delayed. I'm happy to say the long overdue reform of our health-care insurance system has finally begun. The status quo is unsustainable and costly: Without health insurance reform, the insurance premium for an average family is expected to rise from $11,000 to $24,000 in less than a decide. Americans want reduced costs and more choices.

Mr. Speaker, I support this landmark legislation because it changes the way that insurance companies ration medical care: The measure would require all plans to eliminate coverage denials because of a pre- existing condition, eliminate dropping coverage when individuals become sick, eliminate annual and lifetime caps on how much can be spent on care, and eliminate exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses. All Americans deserve these basic protections from their health-insurance plans, and these important guarantees will improve the coverage for nearly all those who already have insurance--even those Americans who are extremely satisfied with their current plans.

The Act starts with what works well in today's health care system and fixes the parts that are broken. No one has to discard the health care they enjoy today--everyone can keep their current health plan, doctors and hospitals. A new marketplace will allow individuals to shop among a large number of private plans or choose a public insurance option. For the first time ever, American families--even those who keep their current health insurance--will benefit from no longer having to worry about losing health coverage because of a new or lost job. The bill finally brings the type of health insurance reform that Americans need and deserve.

I also strongly support this bill because the 47 million uninsured Americans, the 2.6 million uninsured New Yorkers and the 78,000 uninsured neighbors in my congressional district will have access to affordable, secure and quality health-care coverage instead of having to rely on the local hospital emergency room. Most recent administrations never acknowledged the moral or economic costs we pay every day for our failure to fix this problem. Fortunately, President Obama has made comprehensive health-insurance reform his top priority. I am proud to be voting today to make sure that health-care reform contains costs and is affordable; puts our country on a clear path to universal coverage; provides portable coverage; ensures choice of physicians and health plans; promotes prevention and wellness; improves the quality of care, and is fiscally sustainable over the long-term. Putting these principles into action is not only do- able; it is abs essential.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the rule for the Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. Res. 903, so that all Americans will have access to health care.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support the resolution and want to express my deep appreciation to the Chairman, Mr. Berman, and to the Ranking Minority Member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for their efforts to bring this resolution before the House.

In April 2009, the U.N. Human Rights Council set up a Commission to condemn Israel. To the surprise of no one, it did exactly that. But for the grave subject matter, the Goldstone report, built heavily on testimony provided under the auspices of Hamas, would be laughable. In the self-righteous fantasyland inhabited by Judge Goldstone and his colleagues, there's no such thing as terrorism; there's no such thing as Hamas (and if it does exist, it's certainly nothing to fear); there's no such thing as legitimate self-defense; and war is like a sporting event, rather than the most ghastly, destructive, chaotic phenomenon we human beings are capable of creating.

Had the report been submitted by a group of eager law students or the human rights club on a college campus, I would suggest that their efforts had been unfortunately wasted on the production of a pompous, tendentious, one-sided political diatribe. Notwithstanding all their alleged ``facts'' there's very little truth, and for all the so-called ``context'' they supply, there's very little wisdom.

As this diatribe actually carries the imprimatur of a part of the United Nations, there have been--as I feared when the report was first issued--a number of very unfortunate developments all based on the report is being mistaken for a credible piece of work, which it is not. In addition to the wasteful consideration of this thoroughly biased and fatally flawed document in several bodies of the United Nations, the report has also set off yet another round of offensive and sterile Israel-bashing that has brought peace no closer, that has produced no international consensus, and, along the way, that has further sullied and cheapened the reputation of the United Nations and the cause of human rights.

Certainly, the United States must do all that it can to ensure that no more time is spent on this distraction from the real work of making peace. The Obama Administration has rightfully denounced the Goldstone Report, which, if it was taken seriously, would make it legally impossible for this country, or any other country, to defend themselves from terrorists who hide behind civilians. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been forcefully arguing that international community can't possibly expect Israel to exchange ``land for peace'' if, when the peace breaks down, Israel is effectively prohibited from defending itself.

First of all, I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is completely right. And second, there's not even the smallest shred of a possibility that the Israeli public would agree to any peace agreement under the absurd operational restrictions that the Goldstone Report proposes to require of Israel's (and every other country's) armed forces.

The resolution makes clear the strong view of the House that the Obama Administration must do everything it can to quash the Goldstone report, both to protect our own right of self-defense, and to make clear to the world that they can have Goldstone, or they can have Middle East peace, but they can't have Goldstone and Middle East peace.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Can any Member of this body claim the privilege of the House for an hour based on something they read in a newspaper at any time they want?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the resolution before the House. I want to commend the chairman for his strong efforts particularly on the bill as we adopted it in the House in July. The bill before us today had to satisfy other parties and is, in my view, a lesser product for it.

The fundamental question this legislation attempts to answer is: How can we best ensure the full cooperation of the Government and the people of Pakistan in our struggle against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other sources of violence, terror, and regional instability? In the text authored by Chairman Berman, the answer to this question was to propose a long-term partnership, one in which both sides had both interests and responsibilities, a partnership of equals who were expected to constantly and appropriately judge whether or not the relationship was succeeding.

The compromise bill before us today, however, is not a blueprint for a partnership; it is a recipe for disappointment followed by disillusionment.

Pakistan is too big and too complex to be a proper subject for the Senate's preferred Pygmalion-like approach. Even if Pakistanis sought such a relationship, which they very definitely do not, Pakistan is simply beyond our shaping.

Pakistan's interests and our own are not very closely aligned. We see India as a major ally. They see India as unalterably rapacious and inherently dangerous. We see the Afghan Taliban as a wicked, oppressive, and violent group intent on returning Afghanistan to primitive theocratic darkness. They see it as a useful insurance policy. We see Pakistan's ongoing relationship with radical Islamic terrorist groups as utterly illegitimate. They see these groups as both fundamentally just and as essential leverage. They see it as an unwarranted foreign imposition and potentially a violation of their rights. And the list of contradictions could go on across a range of subjects from madrassas to arms sales, from state enterprise corruption to feudal land reforms.

Setting aside the differences we have with the Government of Pakistan, I think we should all be very circumspect about the ability of our own government to carefully spend $1.5 billion a year in Pakistan. The history of our assistance programs with Pakistan does not inspire confidence in either the rectitude of our partners or our own ability to spend the taxpayers' money effectively.

The response to such concerns is predictable: Shall we do nothing? No, of course not. Pakistan is a country we can ignore only at our own peril. Only a fool could pretend that what happens there is not and will not become our concern. This bad neighborhood will definitely come to visit us if we choose not to visit it.

But our success will depend chiefly on reforms taken in Pakistan by Pakistanis. I see little in the bill to provide any assurance that such changes are on the way. I fear again we are choosing to be Pakistan's patron rather than its partner. In the end, Pakistan will absorb what we offer and remain the same Pakistan, and, worst of all, they will claim once again that we have failed them.

But we have no choice but to pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege now to recognize the cosponsor, the main sponsor of the resolution, the majority leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution and commend the majority leader and the minority leader for their good work. We have before us an excellent memorial resolution. It is succinct and strong and truly expresses what I believe to be the position of the entire House.

As we consider this resolution, I would suggest that every Member take a moment to close their eyes, if they are in their offices, turn off the chattering of the television or the importuning of their staff and try to think back to September 11, 2001. It really was 8 years ago.

Remember how beautiful that day was. Perfect. A clear, crisp September day with a cloudless sky. Remember where you were when you heard that our Nation was under attack, when you first saw those awful images of the towers gushing black smoke and the Pentagon in flames. Remember the thousands of our fellow Americans who perished in the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon. Remember the inconceivable heroism of the first responders who rushed into the flames and the chaos in order to save others.

Remember the defiant courage of the passengers on United Flight 93 who lost their lives but probably saved the most glorious symbol of our democracy in the world, the U.S. Capitol, and many, many who were working here on that day. Remember our shock and fury. Remember our national unity and the feeling of common purpose. Remember how the whole world stood with us and shared our outrage and our agony.

These memories are available to all of us if we take but that one moment. We all experienced these events, and all that's needed is to take a moment, to set aside a little bit of time and let it all come back. Why? Is it a morbid fascination with catastrophe? Is it merely to justify some policy or expenditure? I would suggest two other reasons.

First, memory is what we owe to those who were so unjustly murdered. We cannot bring them back and we cannot give meaning to the horrific act that took them from us, but we can remember them as our fellow Americans, as people whose lives were connected to thousands of our fellow citizens who still mourn them to this very day.

Second, I think we should take a moment to ponder the last 8 years. What have we done in response to that day? What have we learned? What do we still owe to those who died? And what we have used their deaths to justify? Have we made the world a safer place? Have we made our homeland more secure? Will the next generation of Americans face more or less danger because of our actions? Each of us will still have our own answers to those questions, just as each one of us remembers that awful day uniquely.

I yield myself another 15 seconds.

In this great Nation which gives each person complete freedom of thought, belief and expression, in which the governed choose who will govern them, the meaning of 9/11 and the consequences of that terrible, terrible, terrible day remain for us to decide, each man and woman for themselves. All it takes is that moment to remember.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, could I request of the gentlewoman from Florida if she has the time and would be willing to lend us one of her minutes.

Thank you so much. And if someone shows up and you need the time, I would be happy to make a unanimous request that that be restored to you.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for 1\3/4\ minutes.

I yield myself 10 seconds.

We have no further additional Members, so if the gentlewoman would like to close we will wait on the Speaker if she chooses to close as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the day after that horrific event, I was back in New York. I went to the piers where the people were waiting to claim bodies and hear of missing loved ones.

There was a gentleman before this huge wall where people had posted pictures of relatives that were missing. And there was one gentleman standing there--it was close to midnight--all by himself, in traditional Orthodox Jewish garb, with a long black coat and large black-brimmed hat standing in front of a picture of someone who looked remarkably like him.

And he just stood there stone-faced. And I just went over and stood next to him as one of the firemen called him to my attention. And he said, without turning away from the picture that he was looking at on the wall, the missing person, he said, That was my brother. He is gone. He called me moments before the building collapsed. He said he knew what was happening, but he would not leave his workplace.

He worked in a station next to a young man from Puerto Rico who was sitting in a wheelchair and who was frightened. And he said, My brother told me I will not let him stay here to die alone. And they were holding hands when his brother hung up the phone. That was the kind of bravery we saw from Americans, all kinds of Americans on that fateful day.

Let us remember them and the sacrifice they made.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

(Ms. CLARKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I thank the distinguished gentlelady from Florida for her cooperation in this bipartisan effort and expression of the House.

I yield the balance of our time, 1 minute, to the distinguished Speaker of the House to close the debate, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.