Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I hesitate to speak of course, lest we get off message, but I am going to take that chance in any event.

I have had the opportunity of serving for a long period of time with Mr. Lewis, Mr. Rogers, Mrs. Lowey, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Dicks on the Appropriations Committee. I am not sure I see anybody else who served on that Appropriations Committee with us. And I served on the Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. And I went on in January of 1983. I won't go all through every year from 1983 to today. That would take too long and would bore you stiff.

But I had the great privilege of sitting just a couple of chairs from the gentleman from Wisconsin, who had been in the Congress some 12 years before I came, having been elected in 1969. Served over four decades in this body. I will adopt all the words that were ascribed to him by the gentlewoman from New York, but three words that I would use are ``tough,'' ``courageous,'' and ``effective.''

I think the gentleman from Kentucky caught it as well. He is a difference maker. I think, Congressman Rogers, your words were very appropriate, not because you agreed or others agreed necessarily with the difference he wanted to make, but you knew if David Obey was engaged in an issue, he would make a difference on that issue.

From my perspective, the good news is David Obey was almost invariably engaged on the issues he thought affected average people, who were not so average at all. Whether it was their education, their health, their housing, making sure the NIH was trying to find cures for diseases that afflicted them,

whether he was standing up to make sure that people in the cold of winter had heat or in the scorching heat of summer had air conditioning to keep them healthy, David Obey could always be counted on as a strong, unwavering, uncowering voice on behalf of people who needed a voice. They had a special interest, but they did not have money to hire voices. They needed voices in this body that we know as the people's House.

The people on some 20 occasions returned David Obey to the Congress of the United States. Maybe it was one more than that, 21 occasions. They returned David Obey to the Congress of the United States because they saw in David Obey that voice that they needed and wanted and respected.

David Obey, in addition to the three attributes I ascribed to him, is honest. One of the things I most admire in David Obey and one of the things I most cherished was his slaying of the dragon of hypocrisy. I don't think anything angered David Obey more than seeing hypocrisy. There is too much hypocrisy, where we say, Oh, we are for this, and then we vote for that, or vice versa. We could always count on David saying, Hey, you want to be honest? Stop posing for holy pictures.

I am sure that has been mentioned during the course of this, because there is a famous phrase that we all remember by David Obey. By that, he meant, of course, be real. Don't try to flim-flam the public. Stand up for what you believe in, not what you think people want to hear. And we had no better example and no more faithful example of that performance than David Obey.

I want to thank David Obey. I want to thank him for being my friend. I want to thank him for being an example of what Members of Congress ought to be. I want to thank him for being a steadfast, faithful voice for the people who needed a voice, a leader on behalf of the principles that I think this country was speaking about when it said that we establish a government to protect the general welfare. David Obey believed that to his very core, and every day of his service his belief was manifest in his actions.

I also want to thank my friend Jerry Lewis. Every day that I served on the Appropriations Committee, I served with Jerry Lewis, and almost every day with Hal Rogers. Hal came a little after Jerry and I came to the committee.

One of the things that I recall to people about this committee is that for most of my service, not all of my service, unfortunately, but for most of my service it was arguably the most bipartisan committee in the Congress of the United States, where we worked together, made determinations together. And, yes, there were differences, but we did so in a civil, collegiate way that the American public I think would have appreciated.

Jerry Lewis has been someone who has focused on our institution. For many of the years that I served, Jerry Lewis and Vic Fazio from California were chairs of the Legislative appropriations committee, and they worked together as a team to make this institution more effective, better serving its Members and better enabling its Members to serve the Nation.

Jerry, I want to thank you for your service as chairman of the committee, but as a member of the committee and certainly as chair of the committee that didn't get much publicity and sometimes was a thankless job, but was a job that you and Vic did in the best traditions of what the American public says it wants--bipartisan cooperation, positive partnership--and I thank you for that.

Hal, I wish you the best of luck as you undertake these responsibilities. We are losing a giant as David Obey retires. David Obey chose to retire. There is no doubt in my mind if he had chosen to run again, his people would have sent him back.

So, David Obey, you have been a great Member of this Congress. You have served your country, your State, and our people well. We are, all of us, in your debt. Godspeed.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of my good friend James (Jim) Muldoon for his commitment, leadership, and achievements in the field of recreational boating and boating safety. I would like to express my appreciation for his dedication to making sailing accessible for everyone, regardless of economic status and physical or intellectual ability.

Mr. Muldoon grew up in Gary, Indiana and didn't learn how to sail until he finished his Air Force service and graduated from the University of Maryland. Since then, Muldoon has been an advocate of community sailing programs at the grassroots level, especially in the areas of youth sailing, training, and safety. He has long been actively involved in international sailing and boating-related organizations. He has captained his own 73-foot yacht, DONNYBROOK, with a highly competitive amateur team in hundreds of races and has accrued over 75,000 miles of ocean racing.

In August, more than two dozen, sailing and boating-related organizations assembled to honor Mr. Muldoon for his lifelong contributions to boating safety. During the ceremony, Martin O'Malley, Governor of Maryland, awarded Mr. Muldoon with the Chesapeake Bay Ambassador Award. Peter Franchot, Comptroller of the State of Maryland also presented Mr. Muldoon with a Certificate of Recognition for his outstanding contributions to the State. Organizations paying tribute to Mr. Muldoon included the U.S. Coast Guard, Special Olympics of Maryland, American Red Cross, Annapolis Community Boating, Annapolis Community Foundation, Annapolis Sailing School, Chesapeake Bay Yacht Racing Association, Coast Guard Foundation, Downtown Sailing Center Baltimore, Kidship, National Association of State Boating Law Administrators, National Boating Federation, National Boating Safety Advisory Council, National Maritime Heritage Foundation, National Safe Boating Council, National Sailing Hall of Fame, National Water Safety Congress, Sailing Center Chesapeakei, Shearwater Sailing Club, Spirit of America, United Safe Boating Institute, United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, United States Power Squadrons, and United States Sailing Association (US SAILING), join together to honor Mr. Muldoon's contributions to the sailing world.

Shelia Hixson, the chair of the Ways and Means Committee of the Maryland House of Delegates, presided over the ceremony and said, ``We have no doubt that Mr. Muldoon will make many more contributions to the recreational boating community in years to come, but we wanted to take this opportunity to thank him for all he has done over the past four decades.''

In October, US SAILING awarded Mr. Muldoon its most prestigious award, the Nathanael G. Herreshoff trophy, for his outstanding contributions to the sport of sailing in the U.S. over many years. Since being founded in 1897, U.S. SAILING has been the national governing body (NGB) for sailing and provides leadership for the sport in the United States. Past winners of the Herreshoff trophy have included Harold Sterling Vanderbilt, Harry C. Melges Jr., Gary Jobson, and Roy E. Disney.

US SAILING has also awarded Mr. Muldoon the Timothea Larr trophy for the outstanding vision and guidance he has provided to the advancement of sailor education in the United States. The president of US SAILING, Gary Jobson, said that Mr. Muldoon ``has been and always will be an outstanding asset to US SAILING and the general sailing community.''

Mr. Muldoon has held more than 30 leadership positions over the years including the following: chair of the Department of Homeland Security's National Boating Safety Advisory Council, member of the Board of Directors and chair of the Development Committee for the Coast Guard Foundation, founder and president of the Brendan Sailing Training Program for Youth with Learning Differences, founding board member and vice president of the National Sailing Hall of Fame, and president, vice president of the Government Relations Committee, administrative division director, and chairman of the Training Committee for US

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, one of the great leaders with whom I have had the opportunity to serve over these last three decades, a man of great character, extraordinary intellect, and unbridled commitment to the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces.

I think all of us who have had the opportunity of serving with Ike Skelton of Missouri have been impressed by his commitment, awed by his depth of knowledge, and encouraged for the security of our country by his leadership. So I rise to pay tribute. This bill is named in his honor. This will be the last bill that he will shepherd as chairman.

Two of the Members of the minority side have spoken and lamented the process that we are following today. I shared that lamentation. And I say to my friends, the reason we are in this pickle is because members of your party in the United States Senate would not allow us to proceed under regular order even though regular order had a majority of votes in the United States Senate. So it is nice to complain and wring our hands, but if obstructionism is the objective in the other body, then regular order has been denied us.

We have an option. We can say they denied us regular order and, therefore, we failed; or, we can do what we did last night--take something that's not perfect but is better than inaction.

Ike Skelton, Carl Levin, and John McCain worked very hard. And, as I understand it, the door was open to an invitation as well on your side.

I rise in strong support of this bill, not because I believe it is a perfect bill, but I believe it is a necessary bill. This defense authorization bill is about securing our Nation in stronger and smarter ways. It builds on our strong record of putting new and better weapons into the battlefield, increasing support for human intelligence collection, cybersecurity, and security for our skies and our ports and our borders, and looking out for our troops, our veterans, and, importantly, their families as well.

This bill authorizes crucial national security programs for fiscal year 2011; much better than a CR, short-term or long-term. It promotes efforts to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks and strengthens the ability of our Special Forces to act directly against terrorist organizations. It increases our international cooperation against terrorists, especially against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Because of the changing threats in the post-Cold War world, this bill, as well, invests in ballistic missile defense and nuclear counterproliferation, including the President's efforts to secure all of the world's known vulnerable nuclear material in the next 4 years.

The defense authorization bill also supports the well-being of our troops and the strength of our Armed Forces. It keeps TRICARE strong and ensures that military families can keep their children on TRICARE until they are 26.

It also reduces strain on our forces by providing 7,000 more personnel for the Army and 5,000 for the Air Force, while helping all of the services rebuild their worn-down equipment and weapons systems.

This bill is an important bill for us to pass. It will pass on a bipartisan basis, and I appreciate that, and I want to thank Mr. McKeon for his efforts to make sure that we pass it on a bipartisan basis. He recognizes, as I do, as Mr. Skelton recognizes, this is not the best process. We could have done and should have done better. Frankly, we did better.

Seven months ago, we passed a bill that has been referred to as the work product of a bipartisan effort to keep our country strong and to make sure that our men and women in uniform were well thought of, well cared for, well equipped, and we made them as safe as possible.

That was not to happen. Our responsibility is therefore to do the best we can. This appears to be the best we can.

I am not surprised that Ike Skelton never wavered for a minute in trying to make sure that we passed a bill that was worthy of the men and women who risk their lives and are ready to be deployed at a moment's notice to defend our freedom and our country.

Ike Skelton, we are proud to be your colleague. You have served your country well, you have served this institution well, and you have been as good a friend as our men and women in the Armed Forces have ever had. America is indeed blessed by God and by the service of men and women of the character, intellect and commitment of people like you.

Thank you, Ike Skelton.

Ladies and gentlemen, the House as all of you know, as is too often the case, we are at a point in time in our schedule where, as I said, too often we find ourselves on the brink of a CR or some other document expiring which leaves the government without funds to continue. That will happen tomorrow at midnight.

We have been in constant communication with the United States Senate, and we are not exactly sure what they are going to pass and, more importantly, when they are going to pass it. As a result, we are confronted with the challenge of ensuring that we have passed a document which will ensure that government does not shut down tomorrow night.

Therefore, it is our intent at this point in time to recess to go to the Rules Committee to obtain a short-term CR, for 3 days, until Tuesday night.

Now, there is a lot of grumbling on my side, and I appreciate your courtesy on your side. But having said that, I know there are at least 434 of my colleagues who are not happy about anything right now, and I want you to know I will make that a unanimous judgment. I am not happy, either. But we are in the place where we have a responsibility and we have not yet completed it, for whatever reason. There is a lot of blame to go around, but the fact is we are not where we need to be.

So when we come back from recess--it will take probably 1\1/2\, 2 hours, let's say we come back at 3:30 or 4 o'clock to consider this short-term CR which will get us through whatever the Senate is

or is not going to do, I will then hope to be able to announce at that point in time the further schedule for tonight and/or tomorrow; and we would like to preclude the necessity to come back next week. I think that would be consistent--even my side would not grumble at that proposition.

So that's what we are trying to do. I hope you will bear with me. You understand the problem that we are having. It is not a new problem; it exists all the time.

So we are going to recess now. We will come back within a short period of time to do this short-term CR, which will be a simple CR simply extending us through Tuesday. Then at 4 o'clock, we will try to have some more information from the Senate. I will be in communication with Mr. Cantor and Mr. Boehner's office. I talked to Mr. Cantor's floor person about this and Mr. McCarthy about this, and we will have better information at 4 o'clock. I would urge all of you to stay here.

I know that everybody wants to get home. I want to get home myself. I don't live far from here, about an hour; but I have not been by my house and haven't decorated a single--as all of you know, I live alone and, therefore, it's up to me and I haven't been there so it's not done. So I want to get home just like you do.

So bear with us. This is our responsibility. We have two Houses; we've got to agree. So we will let you know at 4 o'clock as we begin the CR where we're going from there and try to have some final word.

Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the situation we find ourselves in at this point in time is as follows: I have talked to the leader. He has talked to Senator McConnell. They cannot assure us that they will be able to either pass anything tonight or send us anything tomorrow. They don't have an agreement.

In light of that, it is my judgment that the only alternative available to us is to pass, obviously, this short-term CR, which will keep the government open through Wednesday. We will leave after the last vote in this series, returning Tuesday at 10, with the first votes expected at 11.

Senator Reid believes that by Monday they will be able to pass some continuing resolution or some appropriation process for some period of time. We don't know what that is. I just talked to Senator Reid 10 minutes ago. There is not an agreement on that.

I know that this is not a happy circumstance during the holiday period, to have to return here; but it would be less happy if we waited here this evening, tomorrow, Sunday and Monday with the Senate not sending us anything. I don't think that is fair to you.

As a result, it is my intent that we will leave here after the last votes on this CR and send it to the Senate. The Senate will take it and will pass it. Senator McConnell and Senator Reid have agreed that they will pass this.

It is a simple CR, as Chairman Obey and Mr. Lewis will explain, and I think that will accommodate us, to the extent it is possible to accommodate us at this time.

I know everybody would like to finish today and go home for the holidays until we return January 5. I am in that rank myself. But we are where we are. That seems to me the best way to accommodate all of you, while at the same time accommodating our responsibility to take the action that is necessary to keep the government operating.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Capitol features statues from every State in our Union--statues that honor some of the most memorable and influential people in America's history. The people of the District of Columbia are part of our Union, as well: they pay federal taxes, vote in presidential elections, and share citizenship with us. But when it comes to seeing the District's most notable citizens honored here in the Capitol, in their own city, the people of Washington, DC have again been left out. That needs to change.

This bill would give the people of the District of Columbia--along with the people of the territories of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands--their due in the U.S. Capitol. I believe, in fact, that the District of Columbia deserves two statues, just like any state; but failing that, I believe that some recognition is better than none.

The people of the District of Columbia have made remarkable contributions to America's history, its culture, and its ongoing work to guarantee equal rights to all--and it's time that those contributions are recognized here in the heart of our democracy. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We have just come through a wrenching election. Wrenching, in large part, because of the pain being experienced by our constituents, some more than others. A pain that they're experiencing in part because they are unemployed or underemployed or working two or three jobs to support themselves and their families. We all heard that pain. We all heard that concern. At the same time as we heard the concern

about the pain of economic uncertainty, we heard the concern and the fear about deficits and debt.

And so, my colleagues, we are confronted with two twin challenges: growing our economy and creating jobs, and confronting this gargantuan deficit that puts at risk our economy and the future of our children. The American public would hope that we would come together and pass that on which we can agree, that on which we can compromise.

This House, in fact, passed two pieces of legislation weeks ago and months ago. Months ago, we passed legislation which would give certainty, and my Republican colleagues talk about certainty and I agree with them. We need to give certainty to families, certainty to businesses, and, yes, certainty to those who are worried about estates. They ought to expect that of us, and we passed 12 months ago a continuation of then-existing law, $3.5 million per spouse or $7 million per couple exemption and a 45 percent rate.

But that languished in the United States Senate. It languished because, frankly, there was not a majority or at least not 40 votes to extend certainty. That was unfortunate, in my view, because I think that was an appropriate rate, and I will vote for it on this floor, embodied in the Pomeroy amendment.

And then we passed just a few days ago legislation which would say to all Americans, you will not receive any tax increase on the first $250,000 of your income if you're a married couple or $200,000 if you're an individual. All individuals, no matter how rich, no matter how poor, all individuals would have their tax capped, and very frankly, there were only a few Members on this floor on either side of the aisle who disagreed with that proposition.

But as too often happens because we don't get everything we want, we won't take something we want. That's not good for the American people, and it's not good for our country. And very frankly, only three or four Members on the Republican side of the aisle chose to vote for that legislation, notwithstanding the fact it carried out part of what they thought was appropriate, and we agreed. But it was not enough.

The President of the United States has a responsibility to all Americans, and like every President he can't get everything he wants. To that extent, he's like us. We don't get everything we want, and this bill does not represent everything I want. Those of you who have heard me debate time after time know how concerned I am about this debt and deficit, and you have seen me vote on this floor sometimes in the small minority against steps that I thought would exacerbate the budget deficit without a proper return.

This bill, the President of the United States believes, and I believe, will have a positive effect on the economy, and I think we need that. And unlike some of my colleagues, whose views I share but I have reached a different conclusion, I will vote for this bill because I don't want to see middle-income working people in America get a tax increase because I think that will be a depressant on an economy that needs to be lifted up.

But I am also concerned about the deficit, and I know we're going to borrow every nickel in this bill. I'm for PAYGO. My children, if you ask them, would say they're for PAYGO because they don't want to pay our bills. They're going to have their own bills. Unfortunately, the President and we were confronted with alternatives: Do we extend unemployment insurance when unemployment is at a 9.6 to 9.8 percent rate, or do we let them languish with no certainty? Not certainty about planning whether or not their $7 million estate can be excluded from taxes, but worrying about whether they can put food on the table tomorrow. But unemployment insurance has languished because we haven't had a deal on upper-income taxes or estate taxes being increased from $7 million to $10 million for a couple.

My friends on both sides of the aisle, we need to come together. We need to come together in dealing with this debt. We need to come together in dealing with tax reform. We need to come together in growing jobs. That ought to be the agenda of this next Congress and every Congress thereafter until we accomplish those objectives and the American people have the certainty and confidence that we want them to have.

Now, ladies and gentlemen on the Republican side, very frankly, I have not seen your economic philosophy work. Jack Kemp and I served on the Appropriations Committee, but I don't think supply side is working. Supply side, in my opinion, has the proposition that, if you do less, you get more. Nothing that I have done in life instructs me that, if I do less, I get more. And because of that, because of the concept, if you simply cut taxes on those who are the wealthiest in our society, somehow, magically, the deficit will be eliminated.

Not one year did that happen.

It happened, frankly, when we said the upper 1 percent was going to pay just a little more in 1993, and all of you opposed it--all of you, to a person. And you said it would destroy the economy. Your leader at that point in time--I'm not sure it was the majority leader at that time--Dick Armey said that this would tank the economy.

He was 180 degrees wrong.

In fact, we experienced the best economy we have seen in this country in my lifetime, with 22 million new jobs in 8 years--216,000 jobs per month in the private sector. But unfortunately, under the economic program that we adopted in 2001, we saw the worst economy, the worst job production since Herbert Hoover.

Now, I'm going to vote for this bill because I think it does help the economy, but we are paying too great a price for it because, very frankly, I don't need a tax cut. That's not to say I don't want a tax cut. But it will not affect my life, and it will not affect the economy. It will exacerbate the debt. That's not good for my children or for our country.

So I would urge all of us, as we vote on this piece of legislation-- whatever decision we make--to understand the message that we all received about growing the economy. That is why the President has made this deal that a lot of us don't like, because we think that it was unnecessary to adversely affect the deficit with $700 billion.

And because we have limited it to 2 years--it's less than that in terms of just the upper income--we did not have to pay that price. But we needed to pay the price. We needed to borrow the money to get this economy moving, to get the middle income people having dollars in their pockets so they can grow the economy. And that's worth the price because we will not solve the deficit problem if we don't get our economy growing. We cannot depress at the same time we try to grow, but we grow in the short term, and we solve the deficit in a little longer term.

So I'm going to vote for the Pomeroy amendment. And then in the final analysis, I will vote for this bill. I believe that folks need certainty, as has been said.

I urge my colleagues, as we vote on this legislation, to commit ourselves on both sides of this aisle to do what America wants us to do--to come together as we did. In 1993, we didn't. Some people lost their jobs because they voted with courage and conviction and correctness.

Ladies and gentlemen, there probably is nobody on this floor who likes this bill; and therefore, the judgment is: Is it better than doing nothing? Some of the business groups believe that it will help. I hope they are right. Not only do I hope they are right, I hope if we pass this bill that they respond and create the jobs that we know they have the resources to do.

This is a jobs bill, in my view, which is why I will vote for it. It could be a better jobs bill if we invested the money that we are giving to the wealthiest in America in job growth. It is a bill that will help those who have been unemployed week after week after week and whose angst has grown and grown and grown.

Ladies and gentlemen, each of us will do our duty as we see it, but let us when we do so pledge that we will do better in the months and years to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Barbara A. Stinnett, a Member of the Calvert County Board of Commissioners from 1986 through 1990; 1998 through 2002; and most recently from 2006 to 2010. It is my distinct honor to show our appreciation for her commitment, dedication and public service to Calvert County, to our great State of Maryland and to our Nation.

Commissioner Stinnett was born in Chicago, Illinois, graduated from Calvert High School and has been a resident of Calvert County for 60 years. Commissioner Stinnett is the mother of 4, a grandmother of 11 grandchildren, and a great-grandmother of 7.

In addition to serving three terms as a County Commissioner, Mrs. Stinnett was employed by State Senator Roy Dyson for 14 years, serving as legislative and administrative assistant in his Congressional Office and his State Senate office. She is the owner-operator of an income tax and accounting service and was previously employed at Wayson's Amusement Company in a financial management position for 17 years.

Calvert County has been well served by Commissioner Stinnett's more than 20 years of dedicated public service. She is an active member of the community in a variety of capacities. She served on the Calvert County Democratic Central Committee, as President of the Calvert County Democratic Women's Club, and as Secretary of the Maryland State Democratic Women's Clubs. In addition, Mrs. Stinnett has been a director of the American Red Cross, Calvert Hospice, the Special Olympics, and the Northern High School Boosters. She has held memberships in numerous organizations ranging from the Calvert Farmland Trust and Calvert Historical Society to the Calvert County Fire and Rescue Commission and the Calvert County Farm Bureau. In addition, Mrs. Stinnett has been Director of the Calvert County Fair Board, Charter President of Ducks Unlimited and a charter member of Stallings-Williams American Legion Auxiliary, Unit #206.

Through her years of service she has been an advocate of maintaining Calvert County's rich agricultural heritage and assuring that those without a voice are heard. Her energy, frank and realistic approach and ability to connect with people have made her an outstanding public servant who has an unwavering respect for those she represents.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Commissioner Barbara A. Stinnett for her years of public service, dedicated work and commitment to excellence on behalf of the people of Calvert County.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this amendment.

It is never too late to do the right thing. And that is the proposition that is before this House, the proposition that we are going to, as Barry Goldwater said, worry about whether people can shoot straight, not whether they are straight.

What he meant by that is: Are they competent? Are they committed? Are they patriotic? Are they willing to fight? Have they trained well? Are they prepared to defend our country? That is the litmus test.

Now, that wasn't always the litmus test. There were some times when that group over there could fight over there and the other group over here could fight over here because, after all, if we mixed those groups, it would be damaging to the national security. That proposition was wrong then and it is wrong now.

We passed, some time ago, a defense bill. We passed a defense bill through this House. We adopted an amendment to that bill. That bill is still in the Senate. It is still in the Senate, very frankly, because the minority party has not allowed it to move. It has the votes to move; it simply doesn't have almost two-thirds to move.

This May, the House approved the repeal of our Armed Forces' policy on Don't Ask, Don't Tell adopted some 17 years ago by a vote of 234- 194. We voted to end the outdated policy that, frankly, undermines our national security, pending a comprehensive Defense Department report that would review the issues associated with implementing

repeal and study our troops' attitudes towards open service. That study was undertaken. That study has been reported. That study showed that some 70 percent of the members surveyed said, No problem. Not an issue. Again, I am worried about somebody who can shoot straight, who has the courage and willingness and the commitment to defend our country. That, from their perspective, is the criteria.

That report was released on November 30, as I said, and included an exhaustive survey of the views of more than 115,000 people.

When we take a poll, you are talking about 500, maybe 1,000, if it is a big poll, and you rely on that and you make some pretty important decisions based upon those polls. You spend money based upon those polls. You decide to run based upon those polls. You decide to emphasize issue A or issue B based upon those polls. And, frankly, in some respects, your career depends upon that. So you rely on those surveys.

This survey, 70 percent came to an unambiguous conclusion, quote, ``The risk of repeal to overall military effectiveness is low.''

Now, I have heard Members on the other side of the aisle who have debated this issue say, Oh, no, that is not right; and, very frankly, I have heard generals quoted. But this is, after all, who the generals are concerned about, the people in the field, the men and women who are actually in the battle. And they come back and say, No problem.

Our troops stand with our military leaders and the vast majority of Americans in calling for repeal. The majority of them would be baffled by the fear with which some of my colleagues tar them every time Don't Ask, Don't Tell is discussed.

Some say that our troops are unwilling or apprehensive about serving with gays in the military; yet 92 percent of them who have done so have called that experience very good, good, or neutral.

Now, let me say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, you are serving with gays in this body. You are interfacing with gays every day in the staffs on both sides of this Capitol. You may know or you may not know, but disabuse yourself of the theory that somehow you are bothered by that, because you are not. They serve here with distinction, they serve here with dedication, and they serve here at no risk to any one of us or their colleagues either as employees, as Members, or as visitors to this Capitol. There are surely countless stories that prove that point.

``We have gay men and women,'' one fighter said, ``in my unit. He is big, he is mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared he was gay.'' Why? Because what they focused on was whether or not he did the job, whether he was patriotic, committed, and effective. That is the test. That ought to be the test for every American: the test of character, the test of performance, the test of compliance with the rules and regulations and the laws. That ought to be our test. That certainly is what we expect, I think, of others in judging us.

Despite all of this, the Senate has failed to pass the defense authorization bill. As I said, we passed one last June, I think.

Above all, we must pass this bill because our choice is between a thoughtful, responsible repeal plan developed over months of study or a sudden disruptive review imposed by the courts. Our military leaders understand that the courts are likely to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and that is exactly why they are urging Congress to pass a legislative solution instead.

I tell my friends, I talked to Secretary Gates earlier this week, and he said, Pass this bill. And he said, Pass this bill because we need a legislative, not a court-imposed, solution.

Admiral Mike Mullen, who supports repeal, wants it to come, and I quote, ``through the same process with which the law was enacted rather than precipitously through the courts.''

So I tell my friends that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense, who, by the way, as we all know, is not of my party, but he is not a partisan. He is a promoter of the military security and welfare of the troops. And I refer to Bob Gates, for whom I think we all have a great deal of respect and confidence.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I will tell you what I think about that.

Their concern seems to be for the morale of the troops, of the performance of the troops, which is exactly why we said, and I tell my friend, in May, Let's ask the troops. And that is why we surveyed 115,000 of the troops and said, Is this a problem? And they responded, overwhelmingly, it is not a problem.

There are some who apparently do not accept that. I understand the gentleman. I am not necessarily surprised by that. My friend and my colleague, I don't know exactly your age. You are much younger than I am. This is not a new phenomenon, I tell my young friend.

When we have made changes in the service sector in the past, there had been voices who said this would undermine morale and performance. I suggest to my friend, it did not. And I tell my friend, for those who believe it will, I believe this survey indicates the contrary, and I believe the contrary, based upon experience, based upon observation, and based upon history.

It is a hard choice, it seems to me, to reject--to reject--a considered, thoughtful, planned approach to implementing a policy that Secretary Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen believes is going to happen. And I will tell my friends in this body, my conversations with Members of the Senate indicate that there are sufficient numbers in the Senate to pass this policy.

More than that, Mr. Speaker, it is time to end a policy of official discrimination that has cost America the service of some 13,500 men and women who wore our uniform with honor. They were not discharged because they did not perform their duties or because they were not honorable in their service; they were discharged simply because they were gay.

One of those young men who deserves better is a constituent named Ian Goldin. Actually, he was not dismissed, but I will tell you his story. He wrote to me a compelling letter, and I want to close with his words:

``Congressman Hoyer, I joined the Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps last year after President Obama reaffirmed his campaign pledge to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I have always known that I wanted to serve my country in the Armed Forces, but one thing was always holding me back: I'm gay.

``I've been open about that part of my life since high school, and I was not willing to go back into the closet. But after the President promised to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I decided to finally join ROTC, hopeful that I would not have to hide my sexuality for long. I quickly realized that I had made the right choice. Although I was a new recruit, I was already in the top of my class of cadet privates first class in land navigation.

``But it became increasingly difficult to hide such an important part of who I am.'' Because, of course, the policy that we have in place asks people to lie. Honor, duty, country. Lying is not a component part of that philosophy. But that is what we expect people, if they want to serve their country in the Armed Forces of the United States, to do.

``After learning about the continual delays in Congress, I decided I needed to quit ROTC until the ban was repealed.

``I have spent this past semester studying abroad, and I will spend next semester in Cairo. I have invaluable experience abroad. I'm an advanced Arabic speaker. I'm an ``A'' student at a top national university.

``Most importantly,'' he says, ``I want to serve my country. When I can serve openly, I will finish ROTC and be commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Army. And there are many others like me--I've met them.''

He concluded, ``So please, do whatever you can to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.''

Ladies and gentlemen, we have an opportunity to accept those who are willing, those who are able, those who want to serve their country, yes, in harm's way. Let us take this action. It is the right thing to do and the right time.

In closing, let me say to my friend Mr. McKeon: Mr. McKeon, when I ended my debate, when we passed this in May, you will recall you mentioned General Colin Powell. I did not respond. But as you know, General Colin Powell over these 17 years has changed his perspective. I didn't respond at that time to that fact, but he has done so because he has come to the conclusion that now is the time to act--for our country, for our principles, and for our men and women in the service.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Capitol features statutes from every State in our union--statues that honor some of the most memorable and influential people in America's history. The people of the District of Columbia are part of our union, as well: They pay federal taxes, vote in presidential elections, and share citizenship with us.

But when it comes to seeing the District's most notable citizens honored here in the Capitol, in their own city, the people of Washington, DC have again been left out. That needs to change.

This bill would give the people of the District of Columbia--along with the people of the territories of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands--their due in the U.S. Capitol.

I believe, in fact, that the District of Columbia deserves two statutes, just like any State; but failing that, I believe that some recognition is better than none.

The people of the District of Columbia have made remarkable contributions to America's history, its culture, and its ongoing work to guarantee equal rights to all--and it's time that those contributions are recognized here in the heart of our democracy.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I thank the two distinguished United States Senators from Minnesota for joining us this evening on the floor.

This is a sad day for America--not this particular day--but it is a sad event that an individual of the extraordinary quality and depth and courage and empathy and understanding will not be serving in the 112th Congress. This election saw the defeat of many, many very qualified people--not on their merits, but on the angst of the American public, concerned about jobs and the economy, concerned about the deficit, concerned about many things, and making a statement that they wanted to change. But, unfortunately, some babies got thrown out with the bath water.

Jim Oberstar is a giant in this body. There is no person who chairs any committee in the time that I have been a Member of the House of Representatives, which covers a period of 30 years, no chairman with whom I have served during that period of time has known his subject, has worked harder, studied harder, and focused us on investing in building America any more than Jim Oberstar of Minnesota.

Jim Oberstar graduated from college summa cum laude. Jim Oberstar has been in many places in this world. He taught in Haiti. His family comes from Slovenia. Jim Oberstar is not only a giant when it comes to how we make America a stronger country, how we build our country, how we make sure that we can get goods and services to and from and we can get our citizens to and from places where they need to be, but Jim Oberstar also is a giant when it comes to understanding the world in which we live.

Jim Oberstar has been a continually unwavering voice on behalf of working people in America. Jim Oberstar, in my view, is the definition of a Democrat--someone who puts as his highest priority the interest of men and women in this country, who, as Bill Clinton so famously said, go to work every day and play by the rules and want us to be on their side.

I have served with no individual in the Congress of the United States who has been more on the side of average working men and women who make this country a great country and who in fact are not average at all but extraordinary citizens who care for their country, care for their communities, care for their family, and care for their faith. Jim Oberstar has represented all of those values for every single day he has served in the Congress of the United States and for every single day he served as the chief of staff of his predecessor, John Blatnik.

This is a sad day because we recognize the loss of an extraordinary asset to America, to this House, to this Congress; and I count it as a personal loss to lose someone who has been such a close friend, an extraordinary adviser, a person who has set an example for what every American wants a Member of Congress to be--honest, committed, and on their side.

Jim Oberstar, you have blessed this House and blessed this country. Jim Oberstar, you have much to give in the years to come. Jim Oberstar, I want you to know that I, for one, will continue to rely on your advice and counsel as a partner on the side of every American that makes this country the land we love.

Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Wilson H. Parran, a member of the Calvert County Board of Commissioners since 2002 and president of that commission from 2006-2010. It is my distinct honor to share his story of commitment, dedication and public service to Calvert County, to our great State of Maryland and to our Nation.

Commissioner Parran was born and raised in Calvert County, where he still resides today with his wife Deborah. The youngest of ten children, he grew up on a tobacco farm where his parents were sharecroppers. Wilson grew up under segregation. At the age of six, he had to walk a mile to catch the school bus every day, even though some buses stopped on his street. Wilson learned at an early age, as he watched his mother go before the County Board of Education to get a her son a bus ride to school, that you must be an advocate and in so doing you can see government in action. Twenty-five years later, Wilson was serving on that same Calvert County Board of Education, motivated by his experiences to give back to his community and support education for the betterment of all students.

Following his parents' model of hard work and high expectations to reach for your dreams, Wilson worked his way from entry-level technology positions to a top telecommunications executive. In 1969 he went on leave to join the military, serving in the Air Force for 4 years during the Vietnam War era. Wilson had been out of high school for 12 years before he received his first degree. While serving on the school boards he was going to school himself, and became the first member of his family to graduate from college. An advocate of lifelong learning, Wilson served on the Calvert County Board of Education for 6 years and the Maryland Board of Education for 5 years. Commissioner Parran is past president of the Maryland Association of Counties, MACo, and represented Calvert County on the MACo Legislative Committee. He has served on numerous civic organizations including being on the Calvert Memorial Hospital Foundation Board and president of the Maryland Association of Board of Education, MABE. He is a member of the NAACP and was the recipient of the MABE 2007 Charles W. Willis Award for outstanding School Board Leadership.

Mr. Parran was elected to the Calvert County Board of County Commissioners in 2002, and achieved re-election in 2006. Following his re-election, board members crossed party lines to elect him as president, a position in which he has demonstrated courage, judgment, and integrity.

Calvert County has been well served by Commissioner Parran's two decades of dedicated public service. He has been an ardent advocate for maintaining Calvert County's quality of life, assuring a balance between its rich agricultural heritage and its expanded economic base. We are indebted to his service and leadership and know that his parent's would be so proud to see that the foundation they set of strong family values and commitment to community have reaped many fruits.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Commissioner Wilson H. Parran for his years of public service, dedicated work and commitment to excellence on behalf of the people of Calvert County.

I welcome Christilene Whalen, a member of the United States Navy Chaplain Corps. She led us in prayer today. She serves at the Naval Air Station in Patuxent River in Maryland, where she ministers to sailors, military families, and, I might add, the greater community in which I have the privilege of living.

She is a native of the county in which I live, St. Mary's County. She went to school at Great Mills High School and went to study at Harvard Divinity School. After serving in the ministry for two decades, she joined the Navy as a chaplain 2 years ago. Today, she is proud to serve so closely to the community where she grew up.

We thank her, as Members of the House of Representatives, not only for gracing us today with our opening prayer, but also for her service to her country and to her community. We thank her for the guidance she provides to our men and women in uniform. And we thank her for her words of inspiration to the House today.

Lieutenant, we appreciate your being with us.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me 1 minute. I am about to lose my magic 1 minute, and I lament that fact, but it is a fact. But I have not lost it yet.

I am going to use that minute to speak for children who didn't break the law, who had no concept of violating laws. Their parents brought them here like millions of other children who now live in America, and parents who live in America. They were Irish, they were Polish, they were German, they were Asian, they were South Americans, they were Africans. Their parents brought them to this country, and they grew up in this country and they thought to themselves, I am proud to be an American. And I am sure they sing with Lee Greenwood, I am proud to stand up next to you. And they stand next to us almost every day. We may not know who they are, but they go to school, they serve in our Armed Forces. They participate, and they pay taxes. Some of them are far too young to do that. Some of them know no country except the United States of America. And they feel blessed.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that immigration is an issue that divides many of us in this House. It is an issue that arouses passion. But the test of governing responsibly is whether even in the face of those divisions we can come together to make progress on the basis of a principle that ought to be universal.

I said to my caucus tonight that I had been chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe for 10 years and served on that commission for almost 20. That commission, as some of you know, is charged with overseeing the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act. The Helsinki Final Act, of course, was signed by President Ford in the summer of 1975. What that act tried to accomplish was a universal understanding of human rights and how nations treated their own citizens, and how we would look to those nations and not say it is simply their business, because if they abused their citizens, it was felt after World War II, that they might soon abuse other citizens not within their borders.

And so we said we are our brother's keeper. We do need to make sure that people throughout this world are treated equally. And I have traveled to many countries behind the Iron Curtain over and over and over with my good friend Frank Wolf and others. Mr. Smith from New Jersey, particularly. We went to those countries and said, Treat people fairly.

As I was thinking about this impending debate, I thought to myself, what if some other country were taking children who had grown up, gone to school, were in the military, were going to college, and we were kicking them out of the country because their parents had come from another land. Yes, those parents broke the law, and this is not about excusing breaking the law. These children are not culpable. These young people came here because as all of us went anywhere. I am in Maryland. Why am I a Maryland citizen? I am a Maryland citizen because my stepfather was in the United States Air Force and the United States Air Force transferred him to Andrews Air Force base, and so we moved to Maryland, not because I chose to move to Maryland but because my stepfather and mother moved to Maryland, and they brought me with them. That is who we are talking about. That is who we are talking about.

One of those principles is I believe that individuals who came to this country as undocumented minors and have lived their lives in America should not suffer because of the actions over which they had no control that brought them to the United States. We all universally adopt that principle. No one holds children culpable for the wrongdoing of their parents unless somehow those children are involved themselves in the perpetration of wrongdoing. So this principle is well known to all of us and ought to be followed. That is the idea behind this legislation.

We talk about the American Dream. We have a statue in the harbor in New York. She has a light that she lifts to all the world. And we say:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.

And America says to the world: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

We are the keepers of the golden door.

When the ambassador from Ireland, and we have many Irish among us, came and spoke, one of the things he said is: Deal with this issue. Deal with it because there are Irish among us who perhaps came because their parents saw opportunity at a time of great strife in their land and came to America.

My father came at the age of 32 in 1934 from Denmark to seek opportunity in this country. There are so many of us among this group of 435 who could give similar stories. Our parents came here to seek opportunity. Some came, and our grandparents came, when there was no significant control on their coming here. As immigration has grown, we have had to rightfully make restrictions. And I am one who believes that we need to know who comes into the United States of America.

Our choice tonight is between allowing those young people to live their lives in the shadows of America or ensuring that those who want to serve our country and contribute to our economy can stay in the country that is their home. They perceive it to be their home.

They were children in school, in our neighborhoods, in our boys' and girls' clubs, who played on our athletic fields, and who think of themselves as Americans.

For those young people who have been in our country for 5 continuous years before the enactment of this bill, this is not an inducement to come here; this is not an inducement for somebody to bring their children here. This is to say to those children who are here: We are going to incorporate you if you play by the rules in an opportunity, in this land that we call the land of opportunity.

The DREAM Act provides for 6 years of conditional legal status but only if they have completed high school or a GED during those years. Applicants must finish 2 years of college or serve 2 years in the military and must not commit any crime. We are not going to allow wrongdoers. These are people who are playing by the rules; and if they meet those requirements, they will be able to earn permanent residence and be allowed to apply for citizenship.

Now, understand again that these are young people who broke no law. These are young people who had no intent to break the law. These are young people who have played by the rules, who have graduated from high school, who have gotten GEDs or who are about to do so in order to qualify. In a competitive world, America's openness to immigration is one, frankly, of its strengths, not of its weaknesses. The beneficiaries of the DREAM Act are the kind of new Americans we want-- young people who speak English, who abide by the law and value education, and in many cases, who are willing to risk their lives for America as members of the Armed Forces.

Our military understands the value of a new pool of motivated young men and women committed to serving their country. Clifford Stanley, the Defense Undersecretary in charge of personnel, said that failing to pass this legislation would be, in his words, ``unconscionable.''

Economists also understand the value of these immigrants. A UCLA study found that their income will reach as high as $3.6 trillion over the course of their lives. They're very young now, so that may be 70 or 80 years, which is a long time; but it's an indication of their willingness, as it is of the millions and millions of immigrants throughout our history, to add to the value of America--a Nation, we call ourselves, of immigrants like my father. That's why the DREAM Act is

in keeping with the principles that have made America strong and so dynamic.

Some of you may know Michael Gerson personally. He was George Bush's speechwriter. I hope you had the opportunity to read the column that appeared just two days ago. If you didn't, let me quote from it.

``It is a principle of democratic capitalism . . . that ambitious human beings are not just mouths but hands and brains. They are a resource--the main source of future wealth.''

He urged his party, his Republican Party, to reach out in this instance of which we are not talking about forgiving wrongdoing to young people who have not done anything wrong. Let us stress that over and over. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of that resource, to do what is both in America's interest and in keeping with America's fairness.

Some of you know Jeb Bush. I don't know Jeb Bush personally; but Governor Bush--the Governor of Florida twice--has been mentioned as a possible Presidential candidate.

``I think politicians,'' those of us who serve in public office, ``should be supporting the DREAM Act,'' said Governor Bush. ``I think it's a good policy. I think the military is a most impressive and important institution in this country.'' Those who serve and those who are willing to serve should be given the opportunity--again, not speaking of wrongdoers.

I hope all of my colleagues hear this and all who are listening. Michael Gerson is George Bush's speechwriter. He says at another point in this article, ``It would be difficult to define a more sympathetic group of potential Americans; and the choice here is not between the presence of these young immigrants and their absence. No one is proposing the mass deportation of this particular group.'' These are children who have done nothing wrong and who would be the last on the target lists of even the most enthusiastic immigration restrictionists. In the words of Michael Gerson, ``The actual choice is between allowing these young men and women to develop their talents and serve in the military or not.''

Ladies and gentlemen, I urge my colleagues: Let us join that Lady in the harbor, who lifts her lamp beside this golden door, and understand why the millions and millions and millions and millions of people came from across this Earth to seek opportunity in this great and generous land. Let us reflect that tonight.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Maurice J. McDonough High School Rams from Charles County on their victory in the Maryland 2A football State championship. In the December 4 championship game, the Rams defeated Middletown High School by a score of 21-14 at M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore.

Congratulations are especially due to coach Luke Ethington, who led an outstanding group of athletes to their first championship since 1990, to the players, and to all of the fans. This championship is the product of exceptional athletes and coaches, untold hours of hard work, and the passionate support of the community. I'm very proud of this team, and I congratulate all those involved in bringing home the championship title.