Gary Ackerman

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1359) calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit held captive by Hamas, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my good friend, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for his support for this resolution and for its consideration by the House today. Madam Speaker, Gilad Shalit is not an American. He is an Israeli soldier who has been held captive by Hamas for 4 years. His parents are not Americans. I don't know that he's ever even been to the United States. But I would contend that, nonetheless, he's one of us. Why? Most simply, because he is a soldier serving in the army of a fellow democracy, a long-standing ally that is fighting a war of survival against an Iranian-backed radical Islamist terror organization explicitly committed to the destruction of the Jewish State and the annihilation of all Jews in Israel. Some may doubt that such shocking, vicious bigotry is really possible in the year 2010. It's not merely possible, and it's not an overstatement. It's reality. On June 11, not even 2 weeks ago, Hamas authorities in Gaza broadcast the following ceremony--and this is a quote directly from that sermon: ``Whoever believes that our battle with the Jews and the crusaders has subsided or is dormant is living in delusions. The Jews are convinced that their annihilation and the destruction of their State will never be accomplished by secular, reactionary, Pan-Arabic, or Baathist regimes. Their annihilation and the destruction of their State will only be achieved through Islam.'' It goes on. But that was the basis of the Hamas sermon. That's the Hamas world view. And they're not ashamed of it. We shouldn't hesitate to believe them when they say they hate Jews and they're trying to destroy Israel and they want to create an Islamic theocracy in Palestine. Just look at what they've done in Gaza. For those who believe in universal human rights and religious rights and freedom, Hamas is your enemy. If you believe in peace and two states for two peoples, these are your foes. If you believe kidnapping and extortion are inexcusable and detonating a bomb full of nails and ball bearings inside a city bus or restaurant is barbaric, these are your adversaries. If you believe that firing rockets at homes and kindergartens filled with young kids is absolutely indefensible, and that teaching hate to children is monstrous, these are your opponents. If you support the Palestinian Authority and President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayad are Palestinian's best chance of statehood, Hamas is the opposition. If you support a democratic Jewish State of Israel and want to see Prime Minister Netanyahu take chances for peace, Hamas is the enemy desperate to ensure that he never will. If you want the United States to be active in helping Israelis and Palestinians to make peace, Hamas are the people working against our every effort. Gilad Shalit is just one soldier, but his captivity tells you everything you need to know about Hamas. As the resolution makes clear, contrary to both international humanitarian law and the most basic standards of human conduct, Hamas has prevented all access to Gilad Shalit by competent medical personnel and the representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross. They've done this time and time again. And, Madam Speaker, they've just done it again today. They've denied him the humane treatment to which any captive is entitled; they've barred any communication by him with his family; and they've compelled him to appear on propaganda videos. Each of these unconscionable choices demonstrates the amoral and depraved character of Hamas. These allegedly religious militants are nothing but thugs. Nothing more. They hold up all kinds of banners, and they champion all kinds of causes, and they claim all kinds of mandates. But their real goal is power and their true intention is a disruption of the State of Israel. Against their enterprise of darkness and hatred and bloodshed, we need to stand up with both Palestinians and Israelis for a different vision and a different future--one where Israelis and Palestinians live side by side in peace; where the City of Jerusalem is a city of coexistence and tolerance; where the lost and the missing--all of them--all of them--are returned to their families and their people. It is this vision that motivates us, that mobilizes us to work so hard to achieve peace for others. And it is within this vision of a better future that we keep faith with our allies in the State of Israel and with the Shalit family as they wait for the return of their lost son. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida, the distinguished ranking member of the committee, for her statement and for her support. Madam Speaker, now it's my pleasure to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Nevada, Shelley Berkley, a distinguished and respected member of our committee.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution that is now under consideration.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. I want to thank the Chairman and commend Mr. Costa and Mr. Poe for their work on the resolution. The anniversary of the uprising of the Iranian people to secure their democratic rights is a solemn occasion. The images from last year of ordinary Iranians showing unbelievable courage in challenging the ruthless and vicious theocracy that controls Iran resonated powerfully with Americans. Recalling the late 1980s and the collapse of Communism, many have begun to hope that this wholly indigenous movement, by virtue of its own success, and entirely for its own reasons, will throw on to the ash-heap of history the brutal, irresponsible, and vicious regime of the mullahs. I don't think any one believes the current leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran will go quietly or easily into retirement. And I think it would be foolish to assume that a reformed Iranian government would automatically be very friendly to the United States, or be less committed to the pursuit of its own national interests. But there is good reason to think that a different Iranian government, one that was truly answerable to the aspirations of the Iranian people, would transform the politics of the Middle East, dramatically change the global struggle against violent Islamic extremism and, potentially, salvage the global non-proliferation regime. But as we think about how we can aid the Green Movement, I believe we need to be especially careful and thoughtful. There is, unfortunately, a painful history of American intervention in Iranian affairs, and we should, at the very least, have some humility about our ability to competently shape highly politicized and dynamic events in other nations. Iran is a sovereign state whose people are struggling bravely for their own freedom. It is natural and right for us to want to support their struggle. The question is how? It seems to me that our first obligation is ``to do no harm.'' And our second obligation is to recognize that we are not a doctor, and Iran is not a patient. With these caveats, I believe there are some important things that we can and should do; all of which can be done publicly and outside of Iran. First, as we are doing today, we must continue to let the people of Iran know that we have not forgotten them or their struggle for freedom. Second, we must continue to bear witness to vicious crimes the Iranian regime is perpetrating against its own citizens. A government at war with its own citizens is illegitimate by definition. Third, we and other nations truly committed to universal human rights must continue to highlight Iran's absolutely illegitimate and immoral behavior in international forums and in the United Nations. The Iranian regime's behavior can not be denied and it can not be excused. Finally, and most critically, we absolutely must prevent Iran from acquiring the capability to produce nuclear weapons. For the sake of the people in Iran, for the sake of the people in the Middle East, for the sake of our allies in Israel, and for our own vital national security interests, Iran's nuclear ambitions absolutely must not be allowed to succeed.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the accomplishments of Mr. Charles Segal, a dedicated public servant who has made immeasurable contributions to forging close ties with America's most important ally in the Middle East, the State of Israel. Throughout Mr. Segal's years of service, he has dedicated himself to protecting the human rights of Soviet Jewry and the critically important mission of exposing Nazi war criminals who escaped justice. His work has earned him the deep appreciation not only of strong supporters of the U.S.-Israeli friendship, but also of the State of Israel. I am proud to recognize Mr. Segal and submit a letter from the Israeli Consul General, honoring his exemplary work on behalf of Israel. Consulate General, of Israel in New York, May 5, 2010. Dear Mr. Segal, I recently learned from Rabbi Paul Silton of your longstanding commitment and service to the State of Israel and therefore it is my pleasure to extend these heartfelt wishes of mazal tov to you. As the State of Israel celebrates its 62 anniversary, you have had the privilege of watching our small State take root, grow, and blossom before your very eyes. While some easily dismissed its hidden potential and true value, you took every opportunity available to fight for its existence, knowing that the Jewish people had earned the right to return to their homeland. As a foreign correspondent, you used the power of your words to mobilize the American and Canadian communities in support of Israel as we struggled to become a free and democratic state. You served the Jewish people by fighting for our rights in Washington, DC and representing our goals and aspirations to President Truman. You used your political clout and influence to establish ties and build a solid friendship between America and the State of Israel. Your important work to expose Nazi war criminals and to protect the rights of Soviet Jewry depicts the true character of a man who has always put the wellbeing of others at the forefront of his agenda. The foundation you built has lasted for decades, and we are so grateful for all you have done. On behalf of the State of Israel, I thank you for all of your efforts. I have no doubt that even after all these years of service we will be privileged to see many more incredible things from you. Sincerely, Asaf Shariv, Consul General.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest thanks and most sincere gratitude to Mandingo Tshaka, a resident of Bayside, New York, who first identified and advocated for the need to acknowledge the significant role that slave labor played in the construction of the United States Capitol several years ago. This week, Mr. Tshaka will be traveling to Washington, DC to witness his vision realized when Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid will unveil a series of plaques that honor and remember the contributions made by enslaved African Americans during the building of the Capitol. Thanks to his work and perseverance, the United States government will for the first time acknowledge the regrettable, humiliating, embarrassing, and humbling truth that slave labor helped to construct the very building that houses democracy in our Nation's capital. In 2005, a Congressionally mandated study confirmed that slave labor was used extensively in the construction of the Capitol. The study confirmed what Mr. Tshaka already knew: One of the most egregious human rights violations in the history of the modern world helped erect the United States Capitol. It is to Mr. Tshaka's enduring credit that Congress will publicly and permanently recognize this fact this week. Throughout his life, Mr. Tshaka has tirelessly dedicated himself to advocating for civil, minority and community rights. A lifelong resident of New York City, he has contributed immeasurably to the improvement of his community and of his country. While this week's ceremony will be bittersweet, I am pleased that Mr. Tshaka will be present to witness the fulfillment of his latest endeavor to promote civil rights and awareness. I look forward to welcoming Mr. Tshaka to the Capitol for this historic unveiling and I am proud to see Congress recognize the truth behind the Capitol's construction. I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in recognizing Mandingo Tshaka and thank him for helping to make this week's ceremony a reality.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Chair, several months ago I received a letter from a solider who lives in New York. The letter was very similar to those that many members of Congress receive from brave servicemen and women who reside in their districts. The letter spoke of multiple tours through Iraq and Afghanistan, of volunteering for more service even after completing enough tours to retire, and of the pride of a soldier who loves his country and is willing to sacrifice so much to defend it. But this letter was not quite the same as those that many of us here in the Capitol receive from time to time. You see, despite serving his country for more than 20 years, despite volunteering to serve in a combat zone to defend America's principles of freedom from tyranny and from persecution, and despite receiving two bronze stars for meritorious service to his country, the gay soldier who wrote this letter is required by United States law to lie about who he is or face being discharged from the military. For 16 years, ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' has placed an unthinkable and immoral burden on gay and lesbian servicemen and women, who, under United States law and unlike their heterosexual counterparts, must hide their sexual orientation and their partners from the military. Their partners are not eligible for the military spousal benefits to which the partners of heterosexual servicemen and women are entitled, including health care and better housing. Madame Speaker, ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' is, by definition, a discriminatory policy. In the course of tonight's debate, several members have characterized the House of Representatives' impending vote to repeal ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' as a step forward for morality and equality. And it is. But, before we collectively pat ourselves on the back for a job well done, I would remind my colleagues that tonight's step forward is only a result of the giant leap backwards we took when we instituted the policy in the first place. Years from now, when our children read about ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' in their history books, what will they think of a government that so shamefully turned its back on gay servicemen and women in the interest of a political compromise? Madam Chair, politics is a business of grays. Seldom do we have the opportunity to vote on legislation that is black or white, moral or immoral, right or wrong. Tonight is the rare exception. For the thousands of gay servicemen and women who so bravely serve our country everyday but who live in constant fear of being discovered for who they are, for the principles of freedom and equality upon which the United States of America was founded, and in the interest of righting a wrong that has persisted for far too long, I rise in support of the amendment before us and for the patriotic soldier whose letter I enclose for the record; a letter in which he implores me: ``If and when this issue ever comes up for debate, and even for a vote in Congress, I respectfully ask you to remember all the gay military personnel who are right now risking our lives to defend the U.S. and its values.'' Madam Chair, that moment has come. Hon. Gary Ackerman, Member of the House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Ackerman: I am a captain in the United States Army Reserve, and am presently deployed to Afghanistan. I am writing to you with regard to the military's so-called ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' (DADT) policy. As you may know, there is currently a strong push in Congress to overturn DADT--under which otherwise qualified gay men and women are still being involuntarily dismissed from service-- and replace it with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I strongly support this proposed policy change. I would like to explain the basis for my judgment. I am a veteran of both the U. S. Navy Reserve and the U. S. Army Reserve. In the latter I have served as both a sergeant and as a commissioned officer. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 I have completed tours of duty in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait. I was informed that I had completed twenty good years of Reserve military service, and had thus earned the right to retire. But I did not want to retire with my country still at war. So I volunteered for another combat zone deployment, and am serving once again in Afghanistan. I have been at my current duty station------. I recite this brief resume to let you know that I am no mere observer of the military, but rather someone who has dedicated much of my life to our national defense. Congressman Ackerman, I am also one of the many gay military personnel who have served our country faithfully in these times of terrorism and war. I want to give you my personal perspective on why DADT is so wrong. First of all, it is widely recognized that a married service member's relationship with his or her spouse has a profound impact on that service member's fitness for duty. Thus, straight married service members are free, within the limits of resource availability and operational constraints, to maintain communications with their spouses. In fact, such communication is actively encouraged. Regular phone calls, e- mail, and postal letters really help both the service member and spouse get through the strain of combat zone deployments in particular. Many gay service members have committed partners who, every day, face the same stress and make the same sacrifices as do their straight counterparts. But because of DADT, gay service members and their partners have to constantly worry that an overheard telephone call, an intercepted e-mail message, or other type of compromised communication could lead to a degrading, career-destroying investigation. It is wrong, I believe, to place such additional burdens on the back of American patriots. I write of these matters from personal experience. When the 9/11 terrorist attacks occurred I was in a serious long-term relationship. But the extensive post-9/11 active duty I performed put a serious strain on this relationship. The relationship finally fell completely apart during my first Afghanistan deployment in------. As you may know, the military has seen a troubling increase in the service member suicide rate since 9/11. Furthermore, the loss of a serious relationship is one of the critical risk factors that may contribute to such suicides. I experienced this particular risk factor and my situation was compounded by its occurrence in a war zone. Six years later, I can still vividly remember cradling my government-issue pistol in my hands and fighting the urge to blow my own brains out. I made it through that crisis. I completed my mission in Afghanistan successfully, and in fact was decorated with a Bronze Star Medal at the conclusion of that tour. I went on to earn a second Bronze Star Medal in Iraq two years later, and was promoted to------ shortly after that. What made that crisis particularly difficult was the isolation imposed on me as a result of DADT. A straight Soldier in a comparable crisis could turn to his commander, his first sergeant, or a ``battle buddy'' for help and advice. But such avenues are legally closed to gay troops. If I, for example, had shared the details of my situation with my commander--a decent and honorable man--he would have been legally obligated to have initiated an investigation that would have heaped even more stress upon me, disrupted my unit's mission, and ultimately destroyed my career. I know that many would say that a gay service member in such a situation could go to a chaplain in confidentiality. I have great respect for our military chaplains and for all the good work that they do. But I also believe that no service member should feel forced to see a chaplain as his or her only option. Every service member should have the right to speak freely with a commander, a trusted noncommissioned officer, or a battle buddy. I assert this not only as an individual Soldier, but also as an officer with extensive experience as a platoon leader and company commander. When I have been in these command positions, I have had Soldiers share with me some very personal information about their families and home lives. I was glad that these Soldiers trusted me, and this bond of trust and openness enabled me to give each individual the counsel or moral support that was needed. But what about gay troops? They are legally deprived of such a relationship with a commander, a senior noncommissioned officer, or a battle buddy. This is wrong. These gay troops--especially those experiencing the stress of combat zone duty--deserve access to such relationships. The DADT policy shackles the hands of leaders like myself and prevents us from properly supporting all our troops. This policy puts service members and their loved ones at risk. DADT is a shameful blot on our national honor. I know that many are wary of a repeal of DADT. Perhaps some--particularly those who oppose homosexual conduct on religious grounds--see such a policy change as the equivalent of governmental approval of homosexual conduct. But this is not so. Let me strike an analogy. Many religious individuals are opposed, on biblical grounds, to divorce and remarriage. But persons who have divorced and remarried are plentiful in the armed services, and many serve alongside very conservative religious persons every day. Respecting divorced-and-remarried persons as military professionals does not mean one agrees with their personal life choices, or that the government is advocating such choices. To me, the main issue is that we respect personnel who serve their country honorably and who act with responsibility and integrity in their personal lives. For example, in the military we will punish a ``deadbeat dad'' who neglects to pay his child support, but we support and respect the divorced father who stays committed to his parental responsibilities. I believe that we need to take a comparable stance towards gay service members. There are also some who claim that repealing DADT will negatively impact morale and discipline in our armed services. But I have never seen a single shred of empirical evidence to support such assertions. In fact, the available evidence suggests that treating gay and straight troops equally has no negative impact on military forces. Consider the fact that many of our key allies in current combat and security operations--nations such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia--do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in their armed services. These fighting forces continue to perform admirably. Furthermore, troops from these and other nondiscriminatory nations live and serve side by side every day with U.S. troops in war zones. On this current tour, for example, I personally have shared living and bathing facilities with uniformed personnel from Australia, Canada, Denmark, Spain, and the United Kingdom-- never have I seen a U.S. serviceman run shrieking from the showers because he feared that he might encounter an openly gay individual from one of these allied nations. Last year I met an openly gay chief petty officer from the Australian navy. He had served as part of a U.S.-led multinational team in Iraq. He told me that not only was his presence no problem for the Americans, but they decorated him with a U.S. medal at the end of his tour! Surely if Americans can accept a gay Australian, they can also accept gay fellow Americans. People who claim that the U.S. military cannot manage a policy of sexual orientation nondiscrimination are not only ignoring the realities of current operations, but they are also essentially saying that American service personnel are less professional than those of the U.K., Canada, and other nondiscriminatory nations--I consider such an assertion to be a highly offensive insult. Of course, my argument ultimately leads to a logical--and fair--question: How do we manage this change in policy? The answer is simple. Hold gay service members to exactly the same standards we hold straight service members. If gay individuals were to commit acts of sexual harassment, or engage in any other type of activity that goes contrary to military order, we would discipline them appropriately--and separate them from the service if necessary. This happens to straight service members when necessary; I myself once had to discipline a straight male noncommissioned officer for his inappropriate behavior towards a junior female Soldier. This NCO accepted my counsel, corrected his behavior, and completed his tour of duty successfully. On the other hand, those gay individuals who conduct themselves with honor and dignity, and who demonstrate respect for their fellow service members, would continue to do their jobs. This is exactly the policy that coalition militaries, many U. S. police departments, and dozens of civilian corporations have been following successfully for years. Are we really to believe that this course of action is beyond the capability of the U.S. military? In fact, I believe that the demise of DADT will happen as smoothly and quietly as did similar policy changes in the militaries of allied nations. Gay troops who have been behaving in a professional manner prior to the demise of DADT are not suddenly going to begin engaging in outrageous or disruptive behavior. Today's gay troops, despite the burdens of DADT, are putting their lives on the line every day to defend this country; many of us have been tested in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and other challenging locations. If the military gets rid of DADT, we will continue to do our jobs and take care of our battle buddies; we and our commanders will simply have a terrible burden lifted from our shoulders. Congressman, after more than two decades of military service--at sea and on land, from the Cold War era to the Global War on Terror, in joint service and multinational environments--I think I know the women and men of our armed forces pretty well. I can tell you that every day U. S. service members overcome barriers of difference--difference in race, ethnic heritage, religion, regional origin, gender, socioeconomic class, and other areas. Sexual orientation is just another element in this complex equation. We are able to overcome all these types of difference and form cohesive teams by focusing on the basics: mutual respect, a solid work ethic, personal integrity, and commitment to our common missions. We are also able to recognize that a person whose difference may initially unsettle us may also possess a critical skill, a body of knowledge, or a depth of experience that we need to accomplish these common missions. Can we afford to lose a fluent Arabic linguist because she is a lesbian? Can we afford to discard a combat seasoned infantryman because he is gay? I have enclosed with this letter some documentation from my combat zone service. My contributions have been modest compared to the heroism shown by many of my sisters and brothers in arms. Still, I am proud of what I have achieved. I leave it to you to look at my record and determine whether or not the military would be better off if I--and, for that matter, thousands of people like me--were to be involuntarily dismissed from duty. I am an ordinary guy who grew up in New York. My dad is a retired New York City cop who was deeply impacted by the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Like any other deployed Soldier, I call my folks at least once a week, and they worry about me just like the parents of any Soldier. I don't want to turn the military into some sort of gay utopia. I just want gay Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen--together with our loved ones--to have the sort of peace of mind that our straight sisters and brothers take for granted. Congressman Ackerman, I read on your Web site about how you stood up for Soldiers who were not getting their combat zone tax exemption in Iraq. So I know you are a leader who believes in taking care of the troops. Sir, I believe that now is the time to give troops like me relief from the injustice of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' If and when this issue comes up for debate, and even for a vote, in Congress, I respectfully ask you to remember all the gay military personnel who are right now risking our lives to defend the United States and its values. If you have any questions or comments about anything I have written, you may contact me via e-mail. And please feel free to share this letter and its enclosures, including my contact information, with any individuals or organizations whom you deem appropriate. Sincerely, ------.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the Murphy Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to repeal ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' The time to end this absurd policy is long past due. Since it was implemented in 1994, ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' has resulted in more than 13,000 gay and lesbian servicemembers being discharged for no reason other than their sexual orientation. As the United States has fought wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, hundreds of mission-critical troops, including crucial Arabic and Farsi linguists, have been discharged because the Department of Defense believed they were gay. Such blatant discrimination is both morally wrong and, from a practical perspective, self-defeating. Last year, I received a letter from a gay soldier from Long Island who has bravely served our nation for more than twenty years in two branches of our military. Throughout his numerous tours of duty in Afghanistan and in Iraq, he has earned multiple bronze stars. Although he could retire, he did not want to leave the military when our nation needed him most. So, he volunteered for another combat zone deployment. In his letter, this soldier told me that he has served side-by-side with gay soldiers from the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia and has seen no evidence to suggest that these nations, which have no discriminatory policies against gay and lesbian servicemembers, have a problem with unit cohesion. In fact, an openly gay officer from Australia with whom he served was decorated with a U.S. medal at the end of his tour. This soldier concluded by asking if, after looking at his service record, I thought the military and our nation would be better off without his service. My answer is absolutely not. I thank him for his service and proudly cast my vote to allow him and all other gay and lesbian servicemembers to continue their service to our nation without living in fear of being discharged for simply being who they are. Our service men and women deserve a policy that honors the principles they protect. I stand with our nation's principles. I support the Murphy amendment.

Mr. ACKERMAN

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

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this historic day in strong support of the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010, H.R. 4872. Let me be perfectly clear: all Americans should have access to affordable and quality health-care coverage. For too long, drastically needed health-insurance reform has been delayed. I'm proud that the overdue reform of our health-care insurance system has finally begun. Many of us, including Members of Congress, enjoy excellent health-care coverage. But far too many people have inadequate coverage, including over 70,000 of my constituents who are completely uninsured. And for those of us with coverage, the status quo is unsustainable and costly: Without health insurance reform, the insurance premium for an average family is expected to rise from $13,000 today to $24,000 in less than a decade. Mr. Speaker, my constituents want reduced costs, more choices and expanded coverage. I support this landmark legislation because it changes the way that insurance companies currently ration medical care: The legislation we are about to pass would require all plans to eliminate coverage denials because of pre-existing conditions, eliminate dropping coverage when individuals become sick, eliminate annual and lifetime caps on how much can be spent on care, and eliminate exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses. Opponents of this bill would rather have the big health-insurance companies dictate the rules. But I think all Americans deserve these basic protections from their health-insurance plans, and these important guarantees will improve the coverage for nearly all those who already have insurance--even those Americans who are extremely satisfied with their current plans. The Act starts with what works well in today's health care system and fixes the parts that are broken. No one has to give up the health care they enjoy today--everyone can keep their current health plan, doctors and hospitals. New state marketplaces called exchanges will allow uninsured individuals to shop among a large number of private plans with a core set of benefits. For the first time ever, American families--even those who keep their current health insurance--will benefit from no longer having to worry about losing health coverage because of a new or lost job. The bill finally brings the type of health insurance reform that Americans need and deserve. Many opposed to comprehensive health insurance claim there are no immediate benefits to these bills; that somehow nothing happens until the exchanges are set up. Mr. Speaker, here are just some of the immediate benefits that take effect this very year: small businesses will receive tax credits for offering health insurance to their employees; seniors who fall within the infamous Medicare prescription- drug donut hole will receive a $250 rebate; people who have been denied health-care coverage because of a pre-existing condition will be able to get affordable coverage through temporary high-risk pools; children will no longer be callously denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition; annual limits and lifetime limits on the cost of care will start to be prohibited; and also this year, insurance companies will no longer be able to take away an individual's coverage because they get sick. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the previous Administration and the former leadership of the House of Representatives never acknowledged the moral or economic costs we pay every day for our failure to make health coverage affordable and accessible for everyone. Today, that ends. Today we recognize that more people with good coverage saves lives and saves costs. Today we unequivocally state that people should not have to go bankrupt to pay their medical bills. And today we finally realize that no one should have to go to an emergency room just to receive routine medical care. I am proud to be voting today to make sure that health-care insurance reform is putting these essential principles into action. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010, H.R. 4872 so that all Americans will have access to health care.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Howard Weitzman, who served as the Comptroller of Nassau County, New York from 2001 through 2009. When Howard first took office, Nassau County faced an unprecedented budget crisis. Together with the County Executive, Howard brought Nassau County back from the brink of bankruptcy, balanced the county's budget, and turned deficits into surpluses; a feat made more remarkable when considering he engineered Nassau County's fiscal turnaround without a tax increase for three consecutive years. During his eight year tenure, Howard enhanced the reputation of the Comptroller's Office and helped to restore Nassau County residents' trust that their local government worked for their best interests. Under his stewardship, Nassau County recovered millions of dollars for taxpayers by exposing waste, fraud, abuse and misspending by agencies and vendors that did business with the County. He pioneered the launch of the NassauRx Card, an innovative prescription drug discount program that, to this day, provides savings off retail prescription drug prices. To date, the NassauRx Card has saved Nassau residents more, than $12 million. Prior to becoming Comptroller, Howard served as the Mayor of Great Neck Estates, where he and his wife, Susan, have resided for 28 years. He is a Certified Public Account, a former national healthcare partner at KPMG, and the paragon of a true, dedicated public servant. Howard's years of selfless service to his community are exemplary and his many achievements on behalf of Nassau County residents are worthy of recognition. I ask all my colleagues in the House of Representatives to please join me in honoring Howard Weitzman and thanking him for his service.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the chairman. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I am frankly astonished that the resolution has even come to the floor. I am afraid some of our colleagues either misunderstand the plain text of the War Powers Act or would like the House to initiate a legislative version of the so-called ``memory hole'' described by George Orwell in his foreboding novel 1984. The War Powers Act provides that in the event U.S. forces are engaged in hostilities without either a declaration of war or a specific statutory authorization, a concurrent resolution can be considered to force the withdrawal of our troops. An important piece of law to be sure, but one that is wholly irrelevant to the actual circumstances under which our troops are currently fighting. Like many others in the House, I was present on September 14, 2001, when the House passed House Joint Resolution 64, to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the then- recent attacks launched against the United States. The vote, I would remind you, was 420 in favor and one against. I would note that the gentleman from Ohio, along with myself, was present and voted aye, as was the gentleman from Texas, as were 420 of us. I would like to quote from that resolution which we are seeking to deny existed, which became Public Law 107-40 on September 18, 2001. It says, quote, ``That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.'' Members may like or dislike the war in Afghanistan. They may think the President's new strategy is wise or foolish. They may regard the costs of the war as bearable or not, but they are plainly not entitled to argue that the hostilities were not pursuant to specific authorization by the United States Congress. The 107th Congress authorized the use of force. The President of the United States signed that authorization into law. If a Member of this House is opposed to the war, and I am sympathetic to such views, then the proper remedy is to pass legislation to mandate withdrawal through the Congress under regular order.

Mr. ACKERMAN. They can likewise vote against the annual and supplemental appropriations that fund the war. What Members ought not be able to do is to waste 3 full hours of the House's time debating a resolution founded, at best, on a mistake and, at worst, a willful intention to pretend that recent history that we did authorize this war by a 420-1 vote can be dropped into the ``memory hole.'' No matter what Members believe about the war in Afghanistan, this resolution deserves to fail.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of a sanctions bill that I believe will strengthen the Obama administration's ability to conduct effective diplomacy. The world, and I mean both our allies and others, needs to know that the U.S. Congress is dead serious about sanctions should diplomacy fail to resolve the real concerns about Iran's nuclear program. For those who worry that sanctions may lead to conflict, I would suggest that the opposite is true. With Iranian proliferation on the horizon, what is feckless is reckless. If you don't want war, it seems to me that you absolutely must back the toughest possible political and economic sanctions. It is true that sanctions alone are almost certainly not going to be sufficient to force the Iranian regime to change course. But if we are serious about stopping Iran's race for nuclear capability, we must apply the maximum possible pressure by enhancing our capacity for unilateral sanctions, as we're doing today, by implementing crippling multilateral sanctions, and by developing a strategy that applies more comprehensive pressure than just diplomatic engagement followed by sanctions. President Obama's offer of direct engagement with Iran already helped to heal a variety of political woes, but by itself, diplomacy and political and economic sanctions may still leave too much initiative in Iranian hands. If the Iranians remain recalcitrant and sanctions are applied, no matter how crippling--and I want to make it perfectly clear that I want them to be absolutely suffocating for the regime--the initiative is still left to the ayatollahs to decide when they've had enough. Tragically, I suspect President Obama is soon going to have to decide whether an Iranian nuclear weapon is truly unacceptable in the full meaning of that word and with the full knowledge of what that means. The best thing that we can do to help avoid that terrible moment of truth is to act affirmatively on the bill before us today.

Mr. ACKERMAN

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

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

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and of the U.S.-India relationship. Next week, the Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, will come to Washington for a State visit, and I am pleased that with this resolution, the House will offer him its own welcome. Prime Minister Singh has worked hard to improve our already strong ties and has courageously already taken political risks for our bilateral relationship that few others would venture. But when the Prime Minister put his government and his career on the line, it wasn't for us, though his victory has certainly proved to be to our advantage. No, Prime Minister Singh took his chances for India, for its future and for the fulfillment of that country's enormous potential. And our partnership is built on this foundation: that India's rise as a great power in Asia and as a global player advances critical American interests ranging from the promotion of democracy and democratic values, to improving stability and security throughout all parts of Asia. We do not fear a growing India for one simple reason: India's values are our values. India is a real democracy with real institutions that are subordinate to the rule of law. India, though ready to defend itself, doesn't start wars or harbor terrorists. India, though as fastidious as any state about protecting its sovereignty, can be relied upon to keep its word once committed to a treaty or an international agreement. India struggles to preserve its tradition of religious, cultural, and ethnic pluralism. India safeguards sensitive technologies. India fights terrorism. We do not see ourselves when we look at India, though this Nation has benefited immensely from Indians who have become Americans. India is vastly larger in population, vastly older in history, and vastly more complex culturally with some 2,000 ethnicities and 29 major languages. We do see similarities. We do see a nation committed to lifting itself by its own means. We do see a nation open to the world, and we do see a nation committed to the same vision of peace and security that has guided our own Nation. There are, as to be expected, differences between us. Some of them-- and I would note particularly the issue of Iran--are very serious. But as nations committed to a relationship of equals, a relationship of mutual benefit and mutual respect, I believe we can work through our differences and achieve enormous progress in many areas of our mutual concern. I am delighted that Prime Minister Singh, a man who is one in a billion, is returning to the United States, and I am proud of the House today in offering him such a well-deserved and warm welcome. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. ACKERMAN

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

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

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for introducing this important resolution that recognizes the historic events in Czechoslovakia in 1989 and enables Congress to reaffirm its strong friendship and support for the people of the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic. Twenty years ago, on November 17, communist riot police broke up a peaceful pro-democracy demonstration in Prague, brutally beating many of the student protesters. Rather than silencing the students, however, these violent reprisals led to an avalanche of protests between November 17 and December 29 that ultimately led to the fall of the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia. In the days after the initial protest, a pro-human rights group, known as Charter 77, united with other groups to become the Civic Forum, a strong voice calling for reform, civil liberties, and rights for all citizens. Led by dissent playwright Vaclav Havel, the Civic Forum succeeded in forcing the communist government to resign, paving the way for Havel's election on December 29 as the President of Czechoslovakia. Known around the world as the Velvet Revolution, these historic events further cemented the collapse of the communist regimes throughout Central and Eastern Europe, and helped to precipitate the end of the Cold War. In June 1990, Czechoslovakia held its first democratic election since 1946, bringing into power its first completely noncommunist government in over 40 years. In the 20 years since these momentous events, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic have become strong, vibrant democracies, close NATO allies, and staunch friends of the United States. They continue to contribute to international peace efforts, including by providing troops and assistance under NATO command in Afghanistan. Millions of Americans trace their roots to these two great nations, and the United States is strengthened by their rich cultural heritage and their many significant achievements and contributions. Mr. Speaker, this resolution acknowledges and commemorates the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia 20 years ago this month. It also reaffirms the bonds of friendship and cooperation between the United States and the Czech Republic. I urge all of our colleagues to support this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.