Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1783) making a technical correction to a cross-reference in the final regulations issued by the Office of Compliance to implement the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 that apply to the House of Representatives and employees of the House of Representatives, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, before I briefly summarize the Personnel Subcommittee portion of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act, I want to thank the bill's namesake.

Chairman Skelton, as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have said, has been a most extraordinary leader, and I am personally very grateful for his mentorship. Our country, Mr. Skelton, Ike, is better for your service, and you will be greatly missed.

The bill before us improves the quality of life for our servicemembers, for their families and military survivors, and I am pleased that the chairman as well as my colleagues have spoken about how important these personnel issues are. In fact, we know our national security is embodied in our people who serve.

There are many important elements to that bill. It allows a 1.4 percent pay raise to keep pace with the private sector; authorizes TRICARE beneficiaries to extend health coverage to children up to age 26 and bars increases in medical care premiums; improves access to mental health and other medical providers; and it puts in place recommendations for sexual assault prevention from the Defense Task Force

on Sexual Assault in the Military Services.

I urge my colleague to support the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 17, 2010, I missed the following votes.

Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 652; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 653; and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 654.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1764, I call up the bill (H.R. 2965) to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Conditions for repeal have been met, due diligence has been done, and the time to act is here. Regardless of what critics say, the issue before us has been debated in Congress and reviewed by the Department of Defense. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House have debated repeal for some time.

My subcommittee held hearings on the issue. The first of those hearings

was on July 23, 2008, actually 15 years after the decision had originally been made, and the second hearing on March 3, 2010. Every Member of this body was welcome to attend, though few Republicans actually made the effort to be there at that time. For those of you who weren't there, the takeaway from these hearings was that the current policy does not work for our Armed Forces and is inconsistent with American values. Next, this House approved language identical to what is before us today as part of a National Defense Authorization Act. And, finally, Mr. Speaker, the DOT completed its study on implementing repeal, confirming our troops are ready for repeal.

Seventy percent of the force said that repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell will have a positive, a mixed, or no effect on our military. Seventy-four percent of spouses said that open service would not change their support for their spouse staying in the military. And 92 percent of uniformed personnel who believe they have served with a gay servicemember in the past said their unit's ability to work together was ``very good.'' Eighty-nine percent of our warriors on the front line said the same. In short, servicemembers and their spouses have essentially the same view as the American public: Men and women in uniform who are gay should be allowed to serve openly.

And I want to add, Mr. Speaker, that our top civilian and military officials agree with the American people. Secretary of Defense Gates has clearly stated that, with careful preparation, repeal poses a low risk to the readiness and effectiveness of our forces. Admiral Mullen shares that view. In fact, Secretary Gates' biggest concern is if Congress doesn't act to repeal, then he points out the courts will impose this change on the Department of Defense, leaving little or no time to prepare and implement the transition plan properly.

Now, it is true that the military service chiefs have reservations about the timing of repeal, but they all believe that the language has adequate safeguards and, when implemented correctly, repeal can be done and effectively managed. They acknowledge that leadership at all levels will be key. And I have great confidence, Mr. Speaker, in the leaders who are serving in our military and their professionalism. After all, we trust them with decisions about our Nation's safety. We can trust them to put this transition into practice in a way that addresses the needs of our force. But we cannot begin this new challenge until we repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Mr. Speaker, change is never easy, but it is rarely as necessary as it is today. In addition to clear statistics in favor of repeal, the survey responses got to what is at the heart of this issue--fairness.

Gay and lesbian personnel have the same values, the same values toward their service as servicemembers at large. What is that? It is love of their country. It is honor. It is respect. It is integrity and service over self. In the words of one gay servicemember, repeal would simply ``take the knife out of my back. You have no idea what it is like to have to serve in silence.''

If we miss this opportunity to repeal this law, history will judge us poorly for the damage we have done to our Nation and our military. I urge Members of this House to be on the right side of history and help end Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I just want to remind my colleague that it is not until the Secretary, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the President actually certify that the military is prepared to move forward. There is no defined timeline that this, in fact, would go forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), who is the sponsor of the bill.

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

I yield 1 minute, Mr. Speaker, to the majority leader of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) who happens to be the highest ranking enlisted servicemember serving in Congress.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri), who is a major in the Air Force Reserves.

I yield the gentleman 10 additional seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Tammy Baldwin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Richardson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. Speaker, we have the most adaptive, professional force in the world. So let's move forward. No more excuses. It is time to take away the barriers of people who put service above self and who want to serve our country.

I urge an ``aye'' vote as we repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 75) authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for an event marking the 50th anniversary of the inaugural address of President John F. Kennedy.

Madam 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 matter on the measure now under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this Senate concurrent resolution authorizes use of the Capitol rotunda on January 20, 2011, for a ceremony commemorating the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's inaugural address. In that speech half a century ago, the President urged our country forward with words that still apply today, particularly as we close one session of Congress and start another.

President Kennedy said, ``So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.''

Madam Speaker, I am sincerely looking forward to this commemorative ceremony. I know of no controversy to this measure and urge my colleagues to support Senate Concurrent Resolution 75.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for his words. I ask for an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise today to say thank you, thank you to Ike for being such a great mentor, for taking me under your wing, for telling me a little bit about what it was like for you when you chaired the Personnel Committee a number of years ago. And I think you told me that early on, when I came onto the Armed Services Committee, but it was a few years later when I actually had the great honor of chairing that subcommittee. And then I felt such an incredible burden because I thought, you know, Ike has done this before, and how could I live up to who he had been and the way he had cared for the troops and their families and kind of got through some of the really tough times, because when you deal with those issues, you know that you're going to be looking, wanting to do everything in the world when you can't, when there are limits to what you can do.

And I just really remember you telling me about that and letting me know, get in there, but you better do a good job, he said. I want you to do a good job. I don't want you to screw it up. And so I certainly had that burden.

But more than anything else, Ike, you are such a splendid gentleman, and we use the word kind of loosely here. Sometimes I think we often say ``to the gentleman from'' whatever State that might be. You are the gentleman. You are the epitome of what we all believe to be someone who serves in this body and who cares so deeply and who has such strong principles and who teaches us all. And I think we all want to live up to that standard you set. It's not easy, and you made it really hard for everybody to do that, but I think we all strive for that the best we can.

I know that I didn't have an opportunity to be in your district, but you came to my district. And you and your late wife, Susie, were there, and we had just the most marvelous evening.

I remember I was then at an event that you spoke at, and I remember looking around the room and everybody was just, you know, transfixed, really, on your words. You were telling one of those stories and it went on forever, but that didn't seem to bother anybody. They were just delighted to be in your company and to hear you speak and to hear the way you interacted with all the people in the room, but telling those stories. President Truman, of course, came into that story and your father.

I have just enjoyed serving with you. I can't tell you how much I'm going to miss you. It's going to be a lot. I know you're going to miss everybody here as well. But we are all so much better for having served with you.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6399) to improve certain administrative operations of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, and for other purposes.

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 measure now under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does two things: First, over time Congress has passed five laws creating three categories of senior management positions in the Architect's Office. The five laws specify the number of positions in each category, their functions and compensation. The creation of multiple categories with different pay caps can yield undesirable effects, including the possibility of employees earning more than supervisors. This patchwork hinders the Architect's flexibility to align senior positions equitably across the agency and to make broad organizational changes.

This bill combines the affected positions into one category for administrative purposes capped at a single rate of pay. The Architect requested this sensible provision, which solves the problem that Congress never intended to create.

Second, Mr. Speaker, the bill provides the Architect with the authority to purchase a vehicle maintenance facility for the U.S. Capitol Police. Congress has previously appropriated the money, and there is no additional cost.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I urge support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker I urge an aye vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1646) recognizing the commitment and efforts made by the Library of Congress to promote the joy of reading through the sponsorship of the National Book Festival.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks in the Record and to include extraneous matter.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, we commemorate the 10th anniversary of the National Book Festival. The Library of Congress' commitment to the spread of knowledge is well-known and so is their unbridled joy of books and reading.

I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this resolution, along with all the members of the Committee on House Administration, and would like to congratulate the Library of Congress on another highly successful National Book Festival and laud their continued efforts to spread the joy and wonder of reading.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to join with my colleague in recognizing the successful annual book festival. It did set a new attendance record, and we're delighted and we look forward to next year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 512) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit certain State election administration officials from actively participating in electoral campaigns, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks in the Record and to include extraneous matter on this legislation.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 512 offers each Member of this body the opportunity to help Americans feel confident that their electoral process is fair and their interests are protected. This legislation that we're considering today would take the long overdue step of prohibiting chief election officials from playing a leadership role in the political campaigns of Federal candidates and elections over which they have supervisory authority, and that includes using their name, serving on a campaign committee, fundraising, or using their official office to interfere or affect the results of an election.

When I introduced this in the last Congress, they gave us the number H.R. 101. Well, I thought that was pretty fitting because this bill is so basic you could call it Election Officiating 101, and as any novice knows, when the outcome of a contest is determined by judges, steps are taken to ensure that the judging is impartial so that everyone involved knows that the contest is fair, that they have confidence in the results, and that they want to participate. To actively support one side and to be a judge is unthinkable in every kind of competition I can think of, except, Mr. Speaker, one, our elections, the most important contest in our country.

It's right. Under current law--people probably are surprised by this. Under current law, the chief election official, the person who actually is certifying the final validity of the results, can be actively backing a side by giving a candidate money or other support. It is the equivalent of a person being a player and referee at the same time. In sports, everyone knows who the refs are because they wear the stripes. In elections, the officials can actually run plays on the field and blow the whistle, all while wearing team jerseys and being head of the booster club.

The election official may be and probably is--I would suspect mostly is making the right calls. But it doesn't look unbiased, and it certainly doesn't inspire confidence in the system and in the results.

As a former president of the League of Women Voters in San Diego and a proud American voter myself, I know that election officials are entrusted with a crucial responsibility for our democracy. Their only allegiance must be to the will of the voters, not to partisan political agendas or special interests.

Americans are craving good government solutions to problems facing our country, and this legislation is just that. Congress should not wait for another Florida or Ohio before passing a bill that should not be a partisan fight. In fact, this isn't a partisan issue. It's an issue of preserving the American people's faith and the integrity of our democracy. This bill will finally close the door on inherent conflict of interest. It certainly won't solve everything, but it will help prevent future controversies.

Those who want to oppose this bill can come up with all kinds of excuses for their position. But let's be clear: A vote against this bill is a vote for allowing those who certify our elections to fund- raise and rally for candidates of their choice. If you want our elections to appear tainted, then go ahead and vote against this bill. But if you think election officials should join Federal judges in restraining from political activity, then I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting to me because one of the first things I think my colleague said was that this was somehow drastic legislation. And yet he went on to go out and think about how he might expand it.

Well, I appreciate the issues that he is referring to. Those are issues that, in fact, the Justice Department is looking at, a number of allegations that they are looking at.

But that is not part of this bill. And I go back and I ask my colleague, please read the bill. The bill talks about an active part that a chief State election official might take in political management or in a political campaign, which means serving as a member of an authorized committee of a candidate for Federal office, or the use of official authority, official authority to influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election for Federal office.

That is a very different situation than what my colleague is referring to. And he seems to be concerned about the Secretaries of State. I respect them greatly. A lot of them support this bill. Some of them don't. I am not sure I understand why they don't, because what we are doing here is talking about not them so much as the voters. It is about the voters. And the most important thing is that voters trust that elections are fair.

And my colleague would suggest that maybe there shouldn't be any rules; but I think we do have some rules, and it is important that we have them. We have them for judges as well.

So I think we need to understand what is in this bill. It is not solving all the problems that have been raised, but it is solving a very important one for voters. And they do need to feel, and we saw it happen in our history, in our pretty recent history, that it is an issue for people. It should be.

Why shouldn't people be concerned that their State official person who is overseeing, who is supervising elections doesn't have a bias that is quite clear?

Mr. Speaker, many years ago I was very active with the League of Women Voters. And one of the rules is, if you are a key official, a vice president overseeing the election process for that organization, for the community, or a president, that you don't get involved in political activity. That is one of the rules. I thought it was a great rule, and I was very happy to adhere to it.

This gets to be serious business because we have people out in the streets and we know that because they were concerned about this issue. So I think this is important. It is very narrowly drawn, of course, and it should be. And I would certainly hope that my colleagues would really take a serious look at this because we need to ensure that voters trust the election. That is what this is about. And I believe that they have every right, and we have every right to make certain that that judgment is there, and that there is nothing that gets in the way between the voters and the political process.

Remember, these are Federal elections. And article I, section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to makes laws governing the time, the place and the manner of holding Federal elections. This is in our purview. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5717) to authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to plan, design, and construct a facility and to enter into agreements relating to education programs at the National Zoological Park facility in Front Royal, Virginia, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks in the Record and to include extraneous matter on this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5717 would upgrade the Smithsonian Institution's scientific and educational activities at its unique animal conservation facility, the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute at Front Royal, Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time, I understand that there is a consensus on this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly support the Smithsonian in this effort, and I look forward to passage of this important legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution supporting October 2010 as National Principals Month. This designation will highlight and recognize the critical role that principals play, leading our schools.

I am pleased to introduce this bipartisan resolution with my colleague from the Education and Labor Committee, Congressman Todd Platts.

On any given day, principals are likely to be everything from an educational visionary, to community builder, to budget analyst, to facility manager, to counselor.

This means principals work long hours. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that one in three principals works more than 40 hours per week and often works additional time supervising school activities at night and on weekends.

Principals set the academic tone for their schools and collaborate with teachers to develop performance goals and objectives, all in an effort to improve student achievement.

In the end, it is principals who are responsible for creating and managing the environment where our students learn and grow.

During the time I served on the San Diego School Board, I worked with many remarkable school leaders. I witnessed how their commitment and energy can inspire an entire school--from the youngest student to the most senior teacher.

It is a privilege to introduce a resolution paying tribute to our dedicated school leaders.

This October, let's honor this important role, which they dedicate themselves to year-round.

I want to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for bringing H.R. 2039 forward today.

Mr. Speaker, the forefathers and mothers of our Nation included Congress in section 1 of the Constitution for a reason. Congress is for the people by the people.

But for too long, Congress has encouraged Buy America throughout this country without setting a strong enough example here in the Halls of Congress. My colleague has just referenced a number of the pieces of goods that people purchased that were certainly not made in America.

I suspect that our forefathers would be pleased with this piece of legislation before us. As our Nation works to bolster our manufacturing sector for the 21st century and beyond, we can start with making sure that goods sold in the Capitol and Congress are made right here in the

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 1538, and I want to thank Chairman Berman for bringing my resolution to the floor.

As the world watched the World Cup finals on July 11, terrorists launched suicide attacks against innocent men and women in the city of Kampala, Uganda. At least 70 people tragically died in those blasts, one of whom was a 25-year-old American, Nate ``Oteka'' Henn.

This resolution condemns the terrorist attacks in Kampala, recognizes the important role Uganda plays in the African Union Mission in Somalia, and sends a message to our allies that the United States stands by our strategic partners. It also highlights the urgent need for the United States to work with the international community to address the root causes of extremism and terrorism in East Africa. And finally, this resolution honors Nate ``Oteka'' Henn and all of the victims of this tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, Nate was a committed volunteer for Invisible Children, Inc., a nonprofit organization headquartered in San Diego. That organization works to shed light on the grim reality that is faced by many Ugandans, particularly the children who are abducted and forced to become child soldiers there. Nate was a beloved and hardworking part of this cause, whether at the helm of an Invisible Children van as a member of the team of ``roadies'' or as an effective and heartfelt fundraiser who helped send Ugandan students to school. From what I now know of Nate's innate warmth, humor, and determination, it's no surprise that he was given the name ``Oteka,'' which

means ``the strong one,'' by his Ugandan friends, a name he proudly tattooed on his right arm.

Responsibility for the attack that killed Nate and the dozens of other innocent men and women in Uganda has been claimed by the Somalia- based al-Shabaab terrorist organization. Al-Shabaab has justified the deadly violence on Uganda's 3,400-troop contribution to the African Union Mission in Somalia. But al-Shabaab, which means ``the youth,'' also chose its targets to send a message to Somalis around the world, a message designed to help tighten its control in Somalia and recruit young men into its ranks, including young men from many of the districts we represent.

Nate Henn's life, on quite the other hand, and the work of groups like Invisible Children send a far different message to the youth of Africa, a message that is one of promise and hope rather than of war.

Today, Congress can help reinforce that message by showing that the American people stand side by side with those who strive to make the future brighter for Africa's youth while at the same time telling groups like al-Shabaab that we will not ignore atrocities committed against civilians or our allies.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that all of my colleagues will support this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, with almost half of the unemployed out of work for more than 6 months, I am extremely disappointed that partisan bickering has delayed this important relief to American families.

I want to share with you what one of my constituents wrote to me.

He said, ``I've worked all my life and supported myself and didn't ask for any special treatment. There is pride that comes from work . . . No one is more ready and willing to work than me . . . but there just isn't any.''

Since the lapsing of unemployment benefits, millions have lost the benefits which are keeping their families in their homes and food on their tables, but what we and people may not know or really appreciate is that this also includes tens of thousands of former servicemembers and reservists who have returned home to find themselves without work.

How, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, does prohibiting them from being able to pay their electric and grocery bills help our economy recover?

I urge my colleagues to join me in strong support of this extension.

Mr. Speaker, for 75 years Social Security has been a promise, an investment in the future of our Nation's workforce. An estimated 159 million Americans are eligible for Social Security benefits, and they have earned them.

It is their money, but many worry that these benefits won't be around when they need them. These workers can rest assured that my Democratic colleagues and I intend to preserve and strengthen Social Security for generations to come.

Social Security is a major income source for retired Americans, and workers should receive back what they have paid into Social Security over the years. Our children and grandchildren also deserve to have Social Security available to them upon their retirement.

We can and we will protect the core values of the Social Security system.