Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to mourn the loss and honor the life of Dr. Anthony Brown of Madison.

Anthony was indeed larger than his own life. The gift of love and compassion that he tirelessly bequeathed to all of us during his lifetime is one that can be passed on and passed down forever. He taught us to believe in the power of one to make a difference and more importantly, he showed us by bringing joy and purpose to others every single day. His legacy transcends time, place, person, and death. We are all better for knowing Anthony, for having him in our community, and for feeling his radiant affection for all people.

It would be impossible to recite the countless professional achievements and accomplishments that he accumulated throughout a career without end. To Anthony, his work was never done and that mindset permeated his every action.

He was the epitome of a brother's keeper and embodied all that we strive for in a community of shared responsibility. No matter one's color, creed, or station in life, Anthony was never satisfied until the least among us was given the helping hand we all too often take for granted. While Anthony's spirit of uplifting love and generosity will live on in each of us and all those with whom we share it, the memories of our cherished moments with him will only live on in our thoughts and prayers.

For me, that moment came the day before the Inauguration of President Barack Obama. When I was fortunate enough to be able to present Anthony and Brenda with an invitation to attend, I was met with tears of gratitude. For Anthony and millions more around the world, this was not simply a celebration of a new American leader. It was the realization of a dream told decades ago. It was only fitting for Anthony to be a part of something that he had a hand in creating.

My condolences to Anthony's friends and family could never repay the debt of gratitude we owe Anthony for all he has done for us. All I can say is thank you.

Mr. Speaker, what this health debate boils down to is this question: Whose side are you on? Are you listening to and fighting for the American people or are you listening to insurance executives and fighting to line their pockets? I am listening to and fighting for the American people, and especially the Wisconsinites who will benefit so significantly from health care reform.

This evening, I rise to speak about how health care reform will help women. Women shoulder a disproportionate burden in today's broken health care system. Perhaps most shocking is the discrimination women face in health insurance simply because we are women. To some insurers, being a woman is a preexisting condition. In Wisconsin, as in many other States, if a woman and a man purchase identical insurance coverage in the individual market, the woman will be charged more even though the medical services covered are exactly the same.

In small businesses in Wisconsin and across the country, insurance companies are allowed to count how many male and female employees work at that small business. If the workforce is disproportionately female, the insurance company charges more. So, what sort of small businesses pay the most for health care? Child care centers, home health agencies, and other small businesses with female-dominated workforces.

Adding insult to injury is that we all know that women's pay still lags behind men. Nationally, women earn 78 cents to every dollar earned by a man. And in Wisconsin, that figure is even worse--73 cents to the dollar. So women who make less have the added burden of paying more for their health coverage.

Our health care reform measure will end this practice of gender rating, and that is just one reason why women have so much to gain in health reform.

So I ask again, whose side are you on? The hundreds of thousands of women that you represent or the insurance companies that get away with these practices?

We have talked during the debate a lot about people who can't get any insurance at all because of preexisting conditions, something in their medical history or health status that the insurance company points to and says, We are not going to cover you. Women also bear the brunt of these practices. Can you believe that women who have been the victims of domestic abuse have been denied health insurance because their victimization was considered a preexisting condition? Women who have given birth by C-section are also routinely either refused insurance or provided insurance that specifically denies coverage in the event they have a future C-section.

Our health reform efforts will prevent the insurance companies from denying coverage to women who have been the victims of domestic violence and women who have had C-sections. In fact, our measure will stop the practice of denying needed insurance based on preexisting conditions altogether.

So I ask, whose side are you on? I'm on the side of all Wisconsinites who have ever faced such denials, not on the side of the companies who refused to cover them.

Women also have trouble finding insurance policies that cover what they need when they shop for insurance in the individual market. In that market, it can be next to impossible to find insurance that covers maternity care. In a survey by the National Women's Law Center of plans offered in the individual market in my hometown of Madison, Wisconsin, they could not find a single plan that offered maternity care. I find this shocking. And health care reform will require all new plans to cover a wide set of benefits, including maternity care.

Mr. Speaker, Wisconsinites sent me to Congress to fight for them. I ran for Congress in order to fight for the people of Wisconsin who have been denied insurance based on preexisting conditions or had their coverage dropped in their very time of need. In order to prevent Wisconsinites from having to declare personal bankruptcy because of mounting medical bills from a serious illness, and in order to help families be able to afford their premiums and their deductibles and their copays, this health care reform effort addresses all those problems and then some. It's not perfect and it's not all I wanted it to be, but it is a darn good start.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I missed a recorded vote on March 11, 2010. Had I been present, I would have voted in support of H. Res. 1031 on agreeing to Article II of the resolution (roll No. 103).

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the effort by my colleague from Ohio to draw our collective attention, both in this Congress and throughout the Nation, to bringing our troops home from Afghanistan.

In September, 2001, following the al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., Congress approved a resolution authorizing then- President Bush to ``use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.''

I voted in favor of that resolution and to continue to support all efforts focused on achieving that limited and specific mission. That resolution led to our military action in Afghanistan because at the time al Qaeda was using Afghanistan as a safe haven for its terrorist training camps, and the Taliban government in Afghanistan was supporting al Qaeda's presence within its borders.

As a result of the U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, the Taliban was driven from power, many al Qaeda operatives were killed, and others fled to nearby Pakistan or other more distant countries. National and local democratic elections have been held, a constitution has been written and ratified by the people, and attempts have been made to establish stability and the rule of law in Afghanistan. Yet, after more than 8 years at war, there is evidence that the democratically elected government has little control outside the city of Kabul. Many parts of the country are ungoverned or lawless, opium production is increasing, and

the al Qaeda terrorists whom we seek to kill or capture are no longer present in Afghanistan.

I am deeply concerned that our brave men and women in harm's way in Afghanistan are now expected to perform functions not authorized in the September 2001 authorization of military force. And President Obama's strategy for moving forward in Afghanistan places insufficient emphasis on political, diplomatic, and development initiatives, contains no real exit strategy, and ignores the clear fact of mission creep.

Nobody can question the bravery of our men and women in harm's way in Afghanistan. Their service is courageous and admirable, bringing peace, stability, health, and well-being to a country that has suffered throughout years of conflict and war. But we can question whether these efforts extend beyond the very limited and specific mission articulated in the authorization of use of military force.

I remain deeply committed to keeping America and American interests abroad safe from acts of terrorism, but we cannot afford to have tens of thousands of troops remain in a country where al Qaeda no longer operates. At a time when our Nation is facing such extraordinary challenges at home, I believe we should focus on rebuilding our own Nation and on putting our people back to work.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the United Council of UW Students on its 50th anniversary. Founded in 1960, the United Council of UW Students has served as a champion for student rights and a tireless advocate for protecting access to higher education in Wisconsin.

A non-partisan, non-profit, student-driven organization, United Council employs grassroots techniques to ensure that the voices of students on every University of Wisconsin System campus are heard by our state government. With chapters across the state, United Council gives UW students an important and necessary seat at the table during the policymaking process.

Since its inception, the United Council has worked on a variety of issues including merging the University of Wisconsin and Wisconsin State University systems, increasing student rights and the ability of students to participate in the formation of university policy, and addressing affordability and access to a college education.

Ensuring that all university students have access to an affordable, quality higher education is essential to Wisconsin's economic future and the nation's position in the global economy. I am proud of the legacy of the United Council and its history of fighting for these vital goals.

For 50 years of advocacy on behalf of the students of the University of Wisconsin System, I would like to thank the United Council of UW Students for its service and wish all the members and advocates continued success in the future.

Madam Speaker, I regret that due to illness, I missed 30 votes on December 9, 2009 through December 11, 2009. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

On H. Res. 955, Providing for consideration of H.R. 4213, the Tax Extenders Act, on ordering the previous question, I would have voted yes.

On H. Res. 955, Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4213, the Tax Extenders Act, on agreeing to the resolution, I would have voted yes.

On H.R. 3951, To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2000 Louisiana Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the Roy Rondeno, Sr. Post Office Building, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, I would have voted yes.

On H.R. 4213, Tax Extenders Act of 2009, Table Appealing of the Ruling of the Chair, I would have voted yes.

On H.R. 4213, Tax Extenders Act of 2009, on passage, I would have voted yes.

On H.R. 3603, To rename the Ocmulgee National Monument, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, I would have voted yes.

On H. Res. 956, Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4173) to provide for financial regulatory reform, to protect consumers and investors, to enhance Federal understanding of insurance issues, to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives, markets, and for other purposes, on agreeing to the resolution, I would have voted yes.

On H.R. 86, To eliminate an unused lighthouse reservation, provide management consistency by bringing the rocks and small islands along the coast of Orange County, California, and meet the original Congressional intent of preserving Orange County's rocks and small islands, and for other purposes, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, I would have voted yes.

On H. Res. 961, Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3288) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, on ordering the previous question, I would have voted yes.

On H. Res. 961, Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3288) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, on agreeing to the resolution, I would have voted yes.

On H.R. 3288, Making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, HUD, and related agencies for FY 2010, on agreeing to the conference report, I would have voted yes.

On H.R. 4017, To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 43 Maple Avenue in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, as the Ann Marie Blute Post Office, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, I would have voted yes.

On H. Res. 962, Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, on agreeing to the resolution, I would have voted yes.

On H. Res. 964, Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4173) to provide for financial regulatory reform, to protect consumers and investors, to enhance Federal understanding of insurance issues, to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives markets, and for other purposes, on agreeing to the resolution, I would have voted yes.

On H.R. 4173, Frank of Massachusetts amendment No. 1, as modified, on agreeing to the amendment, I would have voted yes.

On H.R. 4173, Sessions of Texas amendment, on agreeing to the amendment, I would have voted no.

On H.R. 4173, Lynch of Massachusetts amendment, on agreeing to the amendment, I would have voted yes.

On H.R. 4173, Murphy of New York amendment No. 6, on agreeing to the amendment, I would have noted no.

On H.R. 4173, Frank of Massachusetts amendment No. 7, on agreeing to the amendment, I would have voted yes.

On H.R. 4174, Stupak of Michigan amendment No. 8, on agreeing to the amendment, I would have voted yes.

On H.R. 4173, Stupak of Michigan amendment No. 9, on agreeing to the amendment, I would have voted yes.

On H.R. 4173, Kanjorski of Pennsylvania amendment No. 12, on agreeing to the amendment, I would have voted yes.

On H.R. 4173, McCarthy of California amendment, on agreeing to the amendment, I would have voted no.

On H.R. 4173, Peters of Michigan amendment, on agreeing to the amendment, I would have voted yes.

On H.R. 4173, Marshall of Georgia amendment, on agreeing to the amendment, I would have voted yes.

On H.R. 4173, Schakowsky of Illinois amendment, on agreeing to the amendment, I would have voted yes.

On H.R. 4173, Minnick of Idaho amendment, on agreeing to the amendment, I would have voted no.

On H.R. 4173, Bachus of Alabama Substitute Amendment, as Modified, on agreeing to the amendment, I would have voted no.

On H.R. 4173, The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, on Motion to Recommit with Instructions, I would have voted no.

On H.R. 4173, The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, on passage, I would have voted yes.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 125th anniversary of the Ringling Brothers Circus and to recognize the role of both the Circus World Museum and the Wisconsin Historical Society in the preservation of circus industry history. The Ringling Brothers Circus has become a celebrated national entertainment enterprise based in Baraboo, Wisconsin, while the Circus World Museum and Wisconsin Historical Society have developed an impressive collection of circus artifacts and knowledge.

The Ringling Brothers Circus rose to prominence under the leadership of several Baraboo area brothers, eventually becoming one of the most successful entertainment enterprises in American history. This circus has contributed to the economic and cultural vitality of Wisconsin since the Ringling brothers gave their first performance on May 19, 1884. Though Chas, Al, John, Alf, and Otto Ringling launched their small business with less than $100 in assets, these five Baraboo natives went on to purchase the world famous Barnum and Bailey Circus. The organization continued to grow, exhibiting the unique talents and showmanship of this Sauk County family for hundreds of audiences across the country. Combining their passion for performance with an entrepreneurial spirit, the Ringling brothers created one of the longest-running entertainment enterprises in the world. The work of the Ringling brothers and the success of their circus provide impressive examples for ambitious performers and business people everywhere. I am proud of the group's contributions to both the state of Wisconsin and to audiences throughout America.

Over the past half century, the Wisconsin Historical Society and the Circus World Museum have become stewards of circus industry memorabilia and information. Baraboo is home to one of the largest collections of historical circus artifacts in the world, and the Circus World Museum's Robert L. Parkinson Library and Research Center has become the world's foremost research facility for circus history. With objects dating back to 1793, these organizations are leaders, both on a local and national level, in the preservation of circus materials. By maintaining the documents, objects, and knowledge base associated with the circus, the Wisconsin Historical Society and the Circus World Museum have conserved a valuable aspect of our national heritage. The Historical Society's work on behalf of the Ringling Brothers Circus, as well as the circus industry as a whole, serves as an ideal example of its dedication to the local communities and to the enrichment of society through historical preservation.

The citizens of Baraboo can be proud of their city, and its role as the first home to the ``Greatest Show on Earth.'' Since its inception, the Ringling Brothers Circus has cultivated a reputation for excellence in entertainment, while the Circus World Museum has set the standard for circus history preservation. I therefore commend Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus for its sustained contributions to the national circus industry, as well as the Wisconsin Historical Society and the Circus World Museum, for their dedication to circus history and research.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 75th anniversary of the University of Wisconsin Arboretum, and to recognize the efforts of the community organization Friends of the Arboretum. Since June 17, 1934, Madison area citizens have worked with University of Wisconsin officials to develop and maintain an invaluable collection of restored ecosystems. Though thousands of committed people have contributed to the Arboretum in countless ways, one group in particular offers an ideal example of dedication to

the Arboretum's mission. The nonprofit organization Friends of the Arboretum has helped preserve this valuable ecological resource both by fundraising for the Arboretum and through volunteer work. Those efforts, and the work of many others, have made possible invaluable scientific research and unique community opportunities.

Of course, Madison's Arboretum may not have been possible without the initial commitment of 200 hardworking individuals from the Civilian Conservation Corps. During the Great Depression, the efforts of these young government workers produced a natural sanctuary free from encroaching development and biological contamination. Just a few years after its dedication, the Madison Arboretum became the site of several important ecological experiments on conservation and restoration. One historic study conducted on the Arboretum's Curtis Prairie helped establish the use of fire as an effective prairie restoration technique, a method now widely recognized. Those 60 acres of Curtis Prairie today comprise the oldest restored prairie land in the United States.

As University of Wisconsin scientists continue to develop and enhance methods of ecological restoration, the Arboretum remains an important resource in the research process. The Arboretum now contains several preserved forests, prairies, and other lands, spread over hundreds of acres, which make possible influential ecological studies. Since the Civilian Conservation Corps first began reintroducing native flora to the various ecosystems of the Arboretum, it has grown to house over 300 different species of plants. Though urbanization and the invasion of new plant types have provided new, modem challenges for this space, the commitment of university workers and community volunteers, such as those from Friends of the Arboretum, have kept the Arboretum strong. In addition to scientific research, Arboretum workers and volunteers facilitate a variety of community events, and offer unique educational opportunities in the field of ecology.

Today, Madison's University of Wisconsin Arboretum contains the single most comprehensive assortment of restored ecosystems and a highly dedicated group of supporters. I therefore honor the 75th anniversary of the University of Wisconsin Arboretum, and commend both Friends of the Arboretum and all other Arboretum volunteers. The sustained commitment of numerous community members has maintained and enhanced a truly priceless natural resource.

Mr. Speaker, because it is time to protect older women by closing the doughnut hole, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which will provide affordable health coverage to 36 million people who lack it today. This has been an aspiration for our Nation and our people for decades.

I first ran for office motivated by my belief that every American should have access to quality health care, and I will not stop fighting until every American is covered. There are far too many daily reminders of the failures and injustices of our current system, the countless stories of bankruptcy, care delayed and premature death. And yet we have let years go by while people suffer.

Today, we convene to debate and advance legislation that delivers meaningful insurance reform, outlawing outrageous insurance abuses, lowering costs, and extending coverage to all. I will cast my vote today on behalf of the people in Wisconsin and millions throughout America who have said enough is enough.

Today, we declare with conviction: every American deserves health care, and every American shall have it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

A journalist asked me a few years ago if I could point to one thing that has contributed the most to the empowerment of women in our society. In answer to that query, I might have pointed to the 19th Amendment to the Constitution giving women the right to vote, or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or laws mandating equal pay for equal work. But instead, I responded to that journalist that it is the array of legal choices a woman now has that make it possible for her to plan her family--to decide whether to have children, and to decide when to have children. We refer to this array of choices as ``reproductive freedom.''

In the days before women were able to legally access contraception and abortion services, women often had to drop out of school, few could pursue careers in the professions, and too many women in desperate circumstances lost their lives from so-called back-alley abortions.

In 1970 women made up a third of the workforce. Today for the first time in history, women make up half of the U.S. workforce. In 1970, ten women served in the House of Representatives. Today there are 76. In 1970, the percentage of female medical students was 9.6 percent. This year, women are 48 percent of our Nation's medical students. In 1970, the percentage of women in law school was 8 percent. Today, 46.7 percent of law students are female.

These are just some of the changes in the role of women in American society that have occurred over the years during which women have secured the right to a full range of family planning options.

The Stupak/Pitts amendment is an erosion of a woman's reproductive freedom. Access to abortion services in the United States is already severely limited. State laws mandating waiting periods, the lack of insurance coverage of abortion and the scarcity of clinics providing abortion services mean that the right to a safe and legal abortion for many women is already pretty hollow. If this amendment is adopted, a woman's right to choose will be further limited.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 50th anniversary of Wally's House of Embers. Located in Wisconsin Dells, House of Embers has been attracting local residents and hungry travelers since 1959. Offering much more than just legendary hickory smoked barbeque ribs, House of Embers has been an institution in Wisconsin's most popular tourist destination for decades.

When Wally and Barbara Obois purchased Ray's Barbeque from Ray Grieves in 1959 and renamed it House of Embers, the restaurant was little more than four walls and a dirt floor. But year after year, Mr. and Mrs. Obois and their five children worked tirelessly

to bring family tradition and a fine dining experience to their customers. Whether in the original building or the current one built in 1976, they continuously emphasized the importance of serving quality food with the highest level of customer service. And with a unique collection of specialty dining rooms, each having a personality all its own, House of Embers quickly became a staple in the community and continues to attract people from all over Wisconsin and beyond.

After Wally and Barbara finally hung up their aprons in 1998 and set sail for retirement, three of their children purchased the restaurant with the intention of carrying on the Obois family tradition of fine dining. Mark and Mike Obois, graduates of the Culinary Institute of America, and their sister Deb Christensen, proved to be a successful trio as House of Embers ushered in the new millennium. In 2004, the late Dennis Getto, a restaurant critic for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, best characterized the famous Obois family ribs when he wrote, ``My first bite told me that this was real barbecue--the hickory smoke had permeated the rib meat and enriched its flavor.''

For exceptional longevity and superb originality, I congratulate Wally's House of Embers on a half century of providing a uniquely Wisconsin dining experience. The Obois tradition of fine dining is a symbol of the family's dedication to serving our community not only great food, but also laughter, joy, and a friendly smile. I wish the Oboises and everyone involved the very best and I look forward to many more years of success.

Madam Speaker, Rep. Jack Kingston and I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Oscar G. Mayer, Jr., of Madison, Wisconsin. Mr. Mayer's death last July was mourned by his widow, Geraldine, his family, the Madison community and the celebrated company he, his father and grandfather built over the past 125 years. Rosalie Harrison Mayer, his first wife of 56 years, passed away in 1998.

Starting with Oscar Mayer & Co. in Chicago in 1936 as a production trainee, Mr. Mayer devoted his entire business career to the company his grandfather started in 1883. After the deaths of his grandfather and father, Mr. Mayer served as President and later Chairman of Oscar Mayer & Co., leading the company through one of the most productive periods in its history.

Although raised in Illinois, Mr. Mayer moved to Madison, Wisconsin in 1946, while serving as Assistant to the Vice President of Operations. Then in 1957, as company president, Mr. Mayer moved Oscar Mayer & Co.'s headquarters to the Wisconsin state capital. Once rooted in Wisconsin, Oscar Mayer's generosity and kindness were felt in every corner of the greater Madison community.

An impassioned philanthropist, Oscar Mayer never shied away from an opportunity to help his community. Mr. Mayer was instrumental in turning the old Capitol Theater on State Street into Madison's first civic center. Mr. Mayer was a strong supporter of the Madison Arts Center and Elvehjem Art Museum and helped found the Alexis de Tocqueville Society, which has gone on to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the United Way of Dane County. ``Do the right thing,'' was Mr. Mayer's philosophy in business and he carried that into his personal life, donating time, money and services to various organizations and groups

throughout Wisconsin, especially those who shared his love for the outdoors and sought to protect it. Additionally, in 2007, he was the inspiration for the establishment of the Oscar and Rosalie Mayer fund for Pediatric Care at Memorial Health University Medical Center in Savannah, Georgia.

Oscar Mayer's work and charity were widely recognized by his community. He received Honorary Doctor of Laws degrees from the University of Wisconsin--Madison in 1977, Beloit College in 1978, and later from Edgewood College in Madison in 1991. In 1990, Mr. Mayer became one of the first inductees into the Wisconsin Business Hall of Fame.

Oscar Mayer's devotion to his family, company, its employees, the state of Wisconsin and specifically the city of Madison has left a lasting impression. I join Rep. Kingston and the greater Madison community in honoring his life's work and loving spirit.

Thank you, Chairman Skelton.

I rise today in opposition to the minority's motion to instruct. As my colleagues know, hate crimes are acts of violence, motivated by hate and prejudice in which the victim is selected and targeted based upon a characteristic, such as their race, their religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Hate crimes have the consequence of harming not only their victims, but also all who share the same characteristics as the victim. Whole communities are terrorized by hate crimes.

In 1968 in response to horrific hate-based violence in our country, cross burnings, lynchings, fire bombings and the like, Congress acted to protect people who were targeted for violence on the basis of their race, color, religion, and national origin by passing our Nation's original hate crimes laws.

In April of this year, the House passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2009 by a strong and bipartisan margin, strengthening our response to this form of domestic terrorism by adding protections for people targeted for violence because of their gender, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation. We sought to add these new categories to the hate crimes statutes because of a history and a pervasive pattern of heinous violent crimes committed against individuals because of these characteristics. Yet the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2009 is not yet law, and this motion to instruct would prevent it from becoming law, despite the support of the majority of the House and the majority in the other body and President Obama.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you a few reasons why I believe this legislation must urgently be signed into law. I am thinking today of Angie Zapata, an 18-year-old transgender woman who was brutally murdered in Greeley, Colorado, last summer. Angie's killer beat her to death. Thankfully, Angie's killer was brought to justice under a State hate crimes law, but we know with staggering frequency, those who commit similar acts of violence and murder based on hate are not.

I think of Lawrence King, a 15-year-old in Oxnard, California. Larry had suffered harassment from his peers and then was killed by a 14- year-old classmate because of his sexual orientation and gender identity.

And I think today of Matthew Shepard who was brutally attacked by his homophobic assailants and left to die on a fence in Wyoming 10 years ago. Matthew's death generated international outrage by exposing the violent nature of hate crimes and the horrific effect upon targeted communities. And I think of the thousands of other victims of brutal hate crimes. The Department of Justice reported that over 1,500 Americans were victims of hate crimes based on sexual orientation in the year 2007.

Americans across the country, young and old alike, must hear Congress clearly affirm that hate-based violence targeting gays and lesbians and transgender individuals, women, and people with disabilities will not be tolerated.

Mr. Speaker, the arguments have been made, the evidence has been proffered, and, sadly, lives have been lost that more than justify this legislation becoming law. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to instruct.

I want to thank my friend and colleague both for your service to your country and for your leadership on this very critical issue. And also thank you for yielding me some time this evening to talk about it.

I join you in strong support of H.R. 1283, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act. We have heard throughout the evening in 1993 Congress passed Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a law mandating the discharge of openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual servicemembers.

At the time, this law was intended as sort of a compromise to allow gay and lesbian servicemembers to serve in the military so long as they did not disclose their sexual orientation, so long as they hid being gay, lesbian, or bisexual. In other words, this compromise required our servicemembers to conceal, at best, or to lie, at worst. And in an organization such as our military where trust and unit cohesion is so important, this was just untenable.

Fifteen years later, we know that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is misguided, unjust, and, flat out, it is a discriminatory policy. Not only does Don't Ask, Don't Tell damage the lives and livelihoods of our military professionals, it deprives our Armed Forces of their honorable service and needed skills.

The armed services have discharged almost 800 mission critical troops and at least 59 Arabic and nine Farsi linguists under Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the last 5 years. This is just indefensible.

Further, the financial cost alone of implementing Don't Ask, Don't Tell from fiscal year 1994 through 2003 was more than $363 million. Now, we can't afford to lose any more dedicated and talented servicemembers to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and surely we can put these dollars, these resources, to much better use.

Earlier this summer I had the pleasure of meeting Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach. He's an exceptional serviceman who's being discharged under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law. Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach has honorably served his country for 18 years as an F-15E pilot. He received nine Air Medals, including a medal for heroism during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And he was handpicked to protect airspace over Washington, D.C. after the Pentagon was attacked on September 11, 2001.

Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, who has flown combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, against the Taliban and al Qaeda, continues to serve while the recommendation for his honorable discharge moves forward to a review board and eventually to the Secretary of the Air Force. Just 2 years away from his 20-year retirement, this dedicated serviceman stands to lose $46,000 a year in retirement and medical benefits for the rest of his life if he's discharged.

There are approximately one million lesbian and gay veterans in the United States today, as well as 65,000 lesbian and gay servicemembers currently serving in our Armed Forces. Like Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, these brave servicemembers are fighting and dying for their country in two wars. They're making sacrifices, and some are making the ultimate sacrifice, just like their straight counterparts. It makes no sense, and I just believe it's flat out wrong to discharge capable servicemembers for something as irrelevant as their sexual orientation.

Now, as my colleagues have discussed this evening, the Military Readiness Act would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against any member of the Armed Forces or any person seeking to become a member. Further, the Act would authorize the re- accession into the Armed Forces of otherwise qualified individuals previously separated under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Finally, the Act would require that regulations governing the personal conduct of members of the Armed Forces are written and enforced without regard to sexual orientation. It's long past time for Congress to act to end discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals in our Armed Forces by passing the Military Readiness Enhancement Act. So I stand ready to join my colleagues in repealing this dishonorable law as soon as possible and restoring justice and equality in our Armed Forces.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I really do want to commend you, my colleague from Pennsylvania, Congressman Patrick Murphy, for your bold leadership and your work in helping us move closer to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. You have taken the lead in advancing this bill, and I look forward to working with you to see that day come.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I missed four votes under suspension of the Rules on September 9, 2009.

Had I been present, I would have voted in support of the following four bills: H. Res. 447, H.R. 2097, H.R. 2498, and H. Res. 722.