Marty Meehan

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is trying to add to the Defense authorization bill a controversial piece of legislation by Mr. Pence that would blow the lid off the Campaign Finance Reform Act that Republicans and Democrats joined together to support and pass into law and that President Bush signed into law. Mr. Speaker, this country is at war. We need a Defense authorization bill to assist the men and women who are serving our Armed Forces. We have reached an agreement on that bill to help our troops; and now, at the last minute, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee wants to take a controversial piece of campaign finance reform legislation and insert it into that bill. He was exposed by the other Chamber. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee took the floor and condemned it; and now he still wants to add this legislation, controversial legislation, against the public interest. He wants to attach it to a Defense bill at a time when this country is at war. Surely we can do better on this holiday weekend. It is despicable, and I hope this leadership stands up to this. This is one of the worst things I have ever seen this Republican leadership do, A piece of controversial legislation to a Defense bill at a time of war.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Steve Belichick (1919-2005): an Authentic Coach and Father. There have been many great images from the New England Patriots dynasty. Tom Brady embracing his teammates after yet another fourth- quarter touchdown. Adam Vinatieri raising his hands after yet another game-winning kick. The Krafts hugging one another after yet another Super Bowl victory. But the image that might stand out the most is the Gatorade-dousing of Bill and Steve Belichick moments before the Patriots would defeat the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl XXXIX. For many New Englanders, it was the first time they had seen Steve Belichick--the man who every New Englander would like to thank for fathering and mentoring the best coach in football. And like in his 33-year career as an assistant coach at the U.S. Naval Academy, Steve Belichick would need someone else to draw our attention to him, even at a moment of extraordinary personal success. He was his son's role model, and his son was on the verge of coaching the Patriots to an unprecedented third Super Bowl victory in 4 years. It was a moment that any father would savor, and likely in a way that others would detect. But Steve Belichick never sought public attention recognition of his work, be it his innovative game-plans, exceptional scouting reports, or the invaluable lessons he taught his accomplished son. Instead, he craved the background, the behind-the-scenes world unseen to fans and media, and the world where he would consistently win the high praise of those ``in the know.'' And like any truly substantive professional, Steve Belichick would take enormous personal satisfaction in obtaining the respect of his peers--the very respect that would often elude more celebrated coaches. Doubtless for that reason, Steve Belichick had remained out of our sight until the camera caught others showering him and son in victory. It is much the same reason why Bill Belichick often deflects praise and attention. It is simply not the Belichick way of doing things. When Steve Belichick passed away on November 19, 2005 at the age of 86, it was fitting that we remember him as reluctantly tasting success. And it was fitting that he be with his son. It can be said that a father always dreams of being less accomplished than his own child, because there is no greater accomplishment for any father. It is a lesson that Steve Belichick has taught us well.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago, in the wake of September 11, Congress passed the PATRIOT Act to provide law enforcement new tools to protect America from terrorism. The bill was a rushed response and passed in an urgent hour. Fortunately, the bill included sunset provisions, allowing Congress to revisit the law, reflect on its implementation, and fix those parts of the law that have clearly become overreaching. Four years later, Congress has failed to seize the opportunity to do so. I urge my colleagues to oppose the leadership's attempt to irresponsibly rush another flawed bill into law. Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past. Let us instead strike the right balance between our national security and our constitutional rights. At a time when so much of the world questions our commitment to our own values, I urge my colleagues to show the American people and the world that we will defend our country, but that we will do so in a way that protects those rights that make it worth defending.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Republican tax bill. As we approach the end of the year, I wonder `How will this year be remembered?' For the deepening quagmire in Iraq? Will we remember 2005 as a year of hardships? For Katrina, for Rita? Certainly this has been a year of great economic difficulties for low and middle income families. The poorest residents of the gulf coast were most affected by the devastating hurricanes, and the poorest Americans have shouldered a disproportionate share of the burden in Iraq. The Republican tax bill is just another example of the disdain the Majority in Congress has for its low and middle income citizens. Recently, this Congress cut Food Stamps, student loans, child support and Medicaid. Now the Administration is rewarding the rich. In the proposed tax cuts, over 50% of the Capital Gains and Dividends Rate Cut will benefit people who make more than one million dollars. The 55% of American households that make less than $40,000 will get a tax break of only $7 while the households that make more than $1 million will receive an average tax break of $32,000. I support responsible spending, and balancing the budget, but this tax cut and the budget cuts of last month accomplish neither of these goals. In fact, these bills will actually increase the deficit by $16 billion. And at what benefit? So that some of our wealthiest citizens can save a few extra dollars? President Bush has gone on the offensive. He is touting an improved economy by pointing to job statistics from this most recent quarter. But the economy is not improving where we need it to. Middle class Americans are worse off than they were 4 years ago. The average two- earner family needs to work more to pay for health care, housing, college, and transportation than they did in 2001. Middle class families are forced to work more and save less. This means less time to spend with family and less money to put away for retirement. This is not how I want to remember 2005. I don't want to remember 2005 as a year that the government heaped unnecessary burdens upon American families. Stealing from the poor and middle class and giving to the rich, while increasing the deficit, is hardly responsible. I urge you to vote no on the Republican tax cuts.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Richard P. Howe for his 40 years of public service to the City of Lowell. Richard P. Howe is a community leader, political activist, and dear friend. The story of the city of Lowell is a cycle of rise and decline, a constant struggle to revive and then maintain the local economy and to always improve the quality of life of its residents. During the past decade, Lowell has been in the ascent. The fully occupied Cross Point office towers, a rejuvenated downtown symbolized by the Bon Marche building, a newly constructed ballpark and arena, and 10 new schools are the symbols of Lowell's resurgence. Many people contributed to the success of these projects. There is one person, however, whose leadership was critical to each of these projects and that is City Councilor Richard P. Howe. First elected in 1965, Howe's electoral accomplishments alone would identify him as having great impact on the revitalization of the city of Lowell. Tonight marks the end of a 40-year career on the Lowell City council. He has been mayor 4 times (8 years) and a city councilor for longer than anyone else in the city's history. During the first half of his career, Howe's campaign slogan was ``Keep a strong voice in city government.'' On that note, he never let his constituents down. While his critics--not coincidentally the targets of his pointed questions and critical comments--called him an obstructionist, the voters saw it differently, reelecting him repeatedly by comfortable margins. The time of Howe's fiercest political battles was also the time of his greatest electoral success, topping the ticket on four occasions. Finishing first once again in the 1987 elections, Howe was unanimously elected mayor in January 1988. In a January 9, 1988 Sun article entitled ``Richard Howe: From political outcast to elder statesman'' Terry Williams called the veteran councilor's election as mayor ``perhaps the most remarkable turnabout in recent Lowell history.'' Williams, however, ended with a question: But will Howe, who made a career as a critic, be ``comfortable'' in his new role? And more importantly, will he be as effective as a leader as he was a dissident? The answer is critical to Lowell's future. Events of the past 17 years have answered that question in the affirmative. The first test of Howe's leadership abilities came within days, when the new mayor attended a hearing in the United States District Court in Boston. Judge Robert Keeton was about to place the city's schools under Federal control in response to a suit brought by the parents of minority students who alleged segregation and unequal treatment in Lowell's schools. Acceding to Howe's plea that, having just taken office, he needed some time to address the problem, the judge delayed the takeover. After numerous meetings, a city team led by Howe negotiated a settlement of the suit that prevented the Federal takeover. As a result of this desegregation settlement the city was able to secure funding for 10 new schools, making the physical plant of its school system the envy of every community in the State. The city council ratified Howe's leadership by again electing him mayor in 1990, the first time in Lowell's history that a mayor served consecutive terms. School desegregation was not the only problem that made this period a turbulent one. The influx of 30,000 Southeast Asian immigrants strained the city's resources to the breaking point. During this period, Howe made frequent trips to Washington where he persuaded Senator Edward M. Kennedy to secure additional funds for the city to ease the strain. More importantly, Howe's principled and practical approach to Lowell's newest immigrants set the example for the rest of the city. The relatively smooth and rapid integration of an enormous population of new comers into Lowell's fabric is a remarkable and under appreciated story. Economic difficulty returned, however. Banks were seized by the FDIC, foreclosures abounded, and Wang filed for bankruptcy. City government faced a $14 million deficit. The city council of 1992-93 seemed powerless--or unwilling--to respond. That all changed with the election of November 1993 when the voters elected 6 new city councilors. They, in turn, elected Richard Howe mayor. Mayor Howe played a major role in putting together the city council votes necessary to construct the Paul E. Tsongas Arena and Edward LeLacheur Field. No one played a greater role in securing an arena for Lowell than Paul Tsongas. But Tsongas, whose first vote on the Lowell City Council in January 1970 was to elect Richard Howe mayor, realized that unless you get a majority vote of the city council, no project would succeed. He also realized that Richard Howe, through the strength of his personality and the wisdom of his experience, had an unsurpassed ability to put those votes together. While votes on the arena and baseball park are better known, Howe's leadership proved critical to the success of two other and equally important projects during this term. The city and the region were shocked when the Wang Towers were sold at auction for only $525,000. Renaming the complex Cross Point, the new owners needed the city's help--in the form of a $4 million letter of credit--to land Nynex as its anchor tenant. Viewed in light of Cross Point's subsequent sale in 1998 for $110 million, the vote on the letter of credit could be viewed as a ``no brainer.'' Nothing could be farther from the truth, however, because the vote to extend the letter of credit faced substantial opposition and succeeded only because of Howe's decisive leadership on the floor of the city council. This scenario was replayed with the Bon Marche renovations. That building, long the anchor of downtown, had stood vacant and decaying for years until two local residents proposed its redevelopment. The finances would not work without city government providing a major tenant. In spite of strong opposition by some members of the school committee, Howe persuaded a majority of that board to lease two floors of the building for the school department headquarters, and convinced the city council to pay a portion of the rent. Bon Marche was a success, winning an award for historic preservation; it has resumed its former prominence in downtown Lowell. In Lowell, during the past 40 years, Richard P. Howe has been a strong and independent voice in city government. Cross Point, the Bon Marche building, the Tsongas Arena, LeLacheur Field, and 10 new schools are monuments to his leadership.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, in the other body, the junior member from Massachusetts delivered compelling remarks about Congressman Murtha. I believe that it would be to the benefit of all of my colleagues to hear Senator Kerry's comments. Yesterday, Jack Murtha, a respected congressman on military matters, and former Marine Drill Sergeant and decorated Vietnam veteran, spoke out on our policy in Iraq. He didn't come to that moment lightly. He spoke his mind and spoke his heart out of love for his country and support for our troops. I am not going to stand for a swift boat attack strategy against Jack Murtha. It disgusts me that a bunch of guys who have never put on the uniform of their country venomously turn their guns on a marine who served his country heroically in Vietnam and has been serving heroically in Congress ever since. No matter what J.D. Hayworth says, there is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha's character and conscience. Dennis Hastert--the Speaker of the House who never served-- called Jack Murtha a coward and accused him of wanting to cut and run. Well let me tell you, Jack Murtha wasn't a coward when he put himself in harm's way for his country in Vietnam and earned two purple hearts--he was a patriot then, and he is a patriot today. Jack Murtha didn't cut and run when his courage in combat earned him a Bronze Star, and his voice should be heard, not silenced by those who still today cut and run from the truth. Just a day after Dick Cheney, who had 5 deferments from Vietnam, accused Democrats of being unpatriotic--the White House accused Jack Murtha of surrendering. Jack Murtha served 37 years in the Marine Corps. He doesn't know how to surrender--not to enemy combatants, and not to politicians in Washington who say speaking his conscience is unpatriotic. Robert Kennedy once said, `The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country.' Chuck Hagel showed he hasn't forgotten that when he said, `The Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them.' But too many in the Republican Party forgot that long ago. They forgot that asking tough questions isn't pessimism; it's patriotism. We've seen the politics of fear and smear too many times. Whenever challenged, Republican leaders engage in the politics of personal destruction rather than debate the issues. It doesn't matter who you are. When they did it to John McCain, we saw it doesn't matter what political party you're in. When they did it to Max Cleland, we saw it doesn't matter if your service put you in a wheelchair. And when they did it to Jack Murtha yesterday, perhaps the most respected voice on military matters in all of Congress, we saw that this administration will go to any lengths to crush any dissent. Once again, they're engaged in the lowest form of smear and fear politics because they're afraid of actually debating a senior congressman who has advised presidents of both parties on how to best defend our country. They're afraid to debate a decorated veteran who lives and breathes the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor. They're terrified of actually leveling with the American people about the way they misled America into war, and admitting they have no clear plan to finish the job and get our troops home.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, Mr. Speaker, if so many of these Iraqis are ready to come up and to provide the security, the police work in the country, then surely there should be no problem with putting American forces into the background instead of having them up front. The reality is that we have missed a lot of opportunities in Iraq because of a failed policy. Our own State Department polls say that 80 percent of Iraqis view the United States as an unpopular occupier. That is right, an occupier. Forty-five percent of Iraqi citizens think it is morally okay to attack American troops. So if, in fact, Iraqis are ready to keep security in their own country, surely now is the time to let them do that. We should have had, as General Shinseki said, more security forces in from the beginning. He said a few hundred thousand troops. And if we had had them there, maybe we could have won the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people from the beginning when Saddam Hussein fell. But the Pentagon and the civilian leadership thought General Shinseki did not know what he was talking about and they put him out to pasture. But the truth is, he knew what he was talking about. There have been other mistakes made. In April of last year, the shocking photographic evidence of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib became public. In an instant, America's new image in the war on terror was published around the world with photos of Iraqi prisoners being subjected to cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment. A report by Major General Antonio Taguba found ``numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses,'' constituting ``systematic and illegal abuse of detainees'' at Abu Ghraib. And, unfortunately, Abu Ghraib is only the most publicized case of torture in Iraq. Regrettably, it has become clear that torture of detainees in United States custody is not limited to Abu Ghraib or even Iraq. Since Abu Ghraib, there have been increasing reports of torture. Most recently, The Washington Post broke a story of secret CIA detention centers around the globe where prisoners were being sent for questioning. Under the leadership of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the United States has given up the moral high ground that we used to occupy as an international leader. Last month, President Bush defended U.S. interrogation practices, proclaiming, ``We do not torture.'' However, he has refused to back up these words. Instead, he and his administration have vehemently opposed a provision that would specifically prohibit the use of torture as official U.S. protocol. They supported legislation that would strip the right of detainees being held by the United States to the writ of habeas corpus, an 800- year-old legal procedure grounded in the Magna Carta. Instead of denouncing torture is never acceptable, the administration seems to continually be looking for exceptions to the rule. In the now-infamous ``torture memo,'' along with other documents, the Justice Department sought to carve out an increasingly narrow definition of detention. Instead of firing administration officials, like Alberto Gonzales, who referred to the Geneva Convention as ``quaint'' and ``obsolete,'' we have a President who promoted him to the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America, Attorney General. By accepting this behavior, the Bush administration has not only hurt America's credibility around the world; but it has put our soldiers at risk. I have joined forces with a number of my colleagues to try to change this course. However, the leadership in this body has kept us from being heard. We have tried to obtain documents related to Federal investigations of detainee abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo; but our efforts have been shut down by the majority in this body. Mr. Speaker, 173 Members of this body have signed onto the Waxman legislation to establish an independent commission to investigate these abuses; but nearly 6 months after being introduced, this bill languishes in committee without even a hearing from the majority. President Bush and the majority did not want the independent 9/11 Commission. They have also opposed independent commissions to investigate the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina. But just like the revelations that came from the 9/11 Commission, an independent investigation into our detainee policy would help us all in the end. It is time to investigate these abuses. It is never too late to regain our credibility around the world. I call on my colleagues to stand up against torture by standing firm to the belief that the United States has held for generations, that no individual in U.S. custody be subject to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, any time, any place, anywhere.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Republican budget bill. Unfortunately, this bill is just another example of the disdain that this administration and this Congress has shown for the most vulnerable in our society. While the wealthy are lavished with tax cuts, critical social services are being reduced. Under the guise of offsetting the costs of Katrina and deficit reduction, House Republicans are severely cutting important programs that millions of Americans rely on for education, health care, and poverty alleviation. The $50 billion in Republican cuts will have a devastating impact on families across America and in my home State of Massachusetts. At the same time, Republicans are pushing a $70 billion tax package that will overwhelmingly benefit the most wealthy Americans and actually increases the deficit by $16 billion. Now, I support the idea of shared sacrifice but the only sacrifice in this bill is by those that need our government's support the most: $14.3 billion, cut from student loans; $11.4 billion, cut from Medicaid; $4.9 billion, cut from child support; $844 million, cut from food stamps. Republicans will cut student loan funding by $14.3 billion. This represents the largest single cut in the history of the student aid program at a time when the cost of tuition has risen 28 percent at public colleges and 17 percent at private colleges in the last five years. In my home State of Massachusetts there are 172,640 student loan borrowers. Under the Republican plan, the average student borrower in Massachusetts, with $17,500 in loans will be forced to pay an additional $5,800. The Republican budget bill cuts of $11.4 billion from Medicaid. This $11.4 billion cut includes $6.5 billion in cuts that are borne directly by Medicaid enrollees--who include low-income children and seniors, as well as individuals with disabilities. Massachusetts ranks 12th in the country for Medicaid enrollment with over 1.2 million enrollees. The cuts would harm millions of low-income people across the U.S. and thousands in Massachusetts who rely on Medicaid for health coverage. Child support enforcement will be cut by $4.9 billion. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that this will result in reducing child support collections by $24.1 billion over the next 10 years. Experts agree that child support is a cost effective way of reducing poverty. In 2002, 1 million Americans were lifted out of poverty through child support payments. For every $1 spent on child support enforcement programs, $4.38 in child support is collected. Massachusetts would lose $88 million in Federal support over 5 years, rising to $282 million over 10 years. The estimated loss in child support collections would be $140 million over 5 years, rising to $428 million over 10 years. Nearly 250,000 Massachusetts children currently receive child support enforcement services. This will have a devastating effect on the Commonwealth's children who live in single-parent families. Finally, this bill as originally drafted would cut food stamps by $844 million and will result in over 200,000 people losing assistance. Where are our priorities when we put tax cuts for the wealthy above the elderly, low income families, students, and children? Vote ``no'' on the Republican budget bill.

Mr. MEEHAN

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

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in this time when a cloud of scandal hangs over Washington, when the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States has been indicted for perjury, making false statements, when a top White House official is led away in handcuffs, indicted on charges of making false statements related to an investigation of his dealing with lobbyists, at a time when a top Republican lobbyist and fundraiser has been indicted for fraud, when that investigation is the subject of a Department of Justice investigation, and today over in the other body there is a hearing going on looking into possible other misdealings, at a time when the American people have indicated that they are fed up with scandals, how can this House support a bill that would open up new avenues for corruption to enter the political process? The courts have clearly argued that the reason why you can limit campaign contributions is because of corruption and the appearance of corruption. Why would we take a step backwards from campaign finance reform and open up a loophole so big that you could drive a truck through it? Finally, I keep hearing Senator Reid's name mentioned here. I want to assure you of something. If the Senate brings up this bill, they will get more than 20 minutes a side to discuss it. They will discuss it for as long as it needs to be discussed. That is what we should have done here. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who has been a courageous hero in the fight for campaign finance reform.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. I can appreciate the gentleman from California's consistency. He was opposed to campaign finance reform. On the floor, he said he was opposed to any limit. He would just as soon have no limits at all on any campaign finance. He thinks corporations should give. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 35 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I am a friend of the Internet. In fact, I sponsored legislation that would exempt bloggers from FEC legislation. But the issue is how we draw the lines to balance. We do not exempt the Internet from laws controlling child pornography; we do not allow child pornography on the Internet. We do not exempt the Internet from consumer safety laws. We do not exempt the Internet from intellectual property or copyright laws. We do not because we think those laws are important. We wrestle with the details of unavoidable and unintended consequences. Why do we do the hard work of wading through the details? Because why would we do anything else? Why should we disregard the integrity of the political process? Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

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

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I seek to manage the time allocated for the opposition to the motion.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House bill 1606. This legislation, under the guise of protecting bloggers, actually undercuts the progress made by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and reopens the floodgates of corrupting soft money in Federal elections. I also rise in opposition to this legislation being considered on the suspension calendar when it is so clearly a controversial matter on which there has never been a committee markup for members to offer amendments and, under the rules, we cannot offer amendments here today. The debate today is about what is the best way to approach coordinated expenditures that are campaign-related on the Internet. We all understand that the Internet is a wonderful tool for political activity. Its accessibility and generally low cost are invigorating to the body politic. I belong to moveon.org. I read my e-mails every time they are up. But, by the same token, its increased usage by candidates and parties and the increased resources being put into this technology for campaign advertising suggest that we need to be cautious about attempts to exempt all Internet activity from Federal campaign finance laws. Let me say a couple of words about bloggers, because bloggers have generated and received a lot of attention here. No one wants to regulate bloggers, not the campaign finance reformers, not the Democrats, not the Republicans, not the Federal Election Commission. That is clear. The question is whether to exempt individual speech, as I have proposed, or create blanket exemptions for entities as varied as labor unions and major corporations who make soft money contributions at the behest of candidates, on behalf of candidates, and at the direction of candidates. That is why The New York Times editorialized yesterday in opposition to H.R. 1606, and they argued that the bill uses freedom of speech as a fig leaf. The issue here is not individual speech. The issue is corrupting soft money. The primary constitutional basis for campaign finance regulation is preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption of candidates or officeholders. Creating a new way for Members of Congress or the Cabinet to solicit and then coordinate or control unlimited amounts of soft money is precisely the scenario campaign finance reform banned. We are talking about legislators. For example, let us say we had a prescription drug bill that was written by the pharmaceutical industry. This Congress could pass that bill in the middle of the night, and then Members of Congress who passed the bill could actually ask those same pharmaceutical interests to write six-figure checks for campaign ads for them to appear on the Internet. But let me give another example. What could happen is you could have an energy bill, provisions of which were written by the oil and gas industry. Let us say a company like Exxon, as a result of it, had the highest profits they have ever had, record profits because of gasoline prices going out of control. The same people who advocated for that energy bill that Exxon supported could go to Exxon and say, could you use some of those profits to support my campaign with a massive online campaign ad buy. This is no minor affair. This is a major unraveling of the law. As Senators McCain and Feingold have made clear, this is not free speech, this is paid speech, politically paid for with unlimited corporate and union contributions. It is important to note that the bill under consideration today uses the exact same language that the FEC tried and that a Federal court struck down. The judge in that case, Colleen Kollar-Kottelly, wrote that the provisions would ``permit rampant circumvention of the campaign finance laws and foster corruption.'' She went on to say that the provision would ``severely undermine'' the campaign finance law. Her rulings have gone before the D.C. Court of Appeals twice, and they have been upheld. Just days ago, a CNN poll found that the American people believe that corruption in government is the second most important issue facing this Nation after the economy. The American people are tired of the scandals. We are considering today a bill that flies in the face of public concerns about corruption and is likely to create new corruption and new scandals. The bill that we are considering will also allow political parties to use soft money to pay for Internet ads bashing candidates. Experience teaches us that professionals who are political will find ways to exploit any perceived loopholes. For example, the national party soft-money loophole started as a minor blip in the 1980s and exploded into a half a billion-dollar binge by the 2000 cycle. Corporations and billionaires will be enabled to pay for Internet- related expenses of requesting candidates or requesting parties, and the public will not have a clue where this money comes from, because virtually all they will see is the Internet advertising designed and created by candidates. That is one of the reasons why this bill is opposed by Common Cause, opposed by Public Citizen, opposed by U.S. PIRG, opposed by Democracy 21, and opposed by the League of Women Voters. That is why The Washington Post editorialized this week that this would be carving a huge cyber-loophole in the soft money ban. That is why The New York Times said yesterday, ``make no mistake about it. This bill is to protect political bagmen, not bloggers.'' In protecting bloggers, we need to approach this the right way, and this bill is the wrong way. I have introduced a bill with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) called the Internet Anti-Corruption and Free Speech Protection Act of 2005. Under this legislation, communications over the Internet by individuals on their own Web sites would be treated the same as they are in H.R. 1606. But our substitute, which we cannot allow today, we are not allowed to present, would not blow open the same gaping loophole for paid advertising. Unfortunately, because the leadership has chosen to bring this up under a suspension of the rules, we are unable to offer our substitute. The suspension calendar is for naming post offices and other noncontroversial matters. It is not a place to create new loopholes in the campaign finance laws. Limiting the democratic process and stifling the debate is an unacceptable way to undertake such an important matter of public policy. It is wrong to do so. It is unfair. It is an abuse of power. So why are we rushing through this suspension? I urge my colleagues to oppose this suspension so that we might be able to have a full debate, including consideration of the Shays-Meehan alternative bill to protect bloggers, without creating new avenues for corruption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who knows and understands the rules and procedures of this institution as well as anyone who has ever served here.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a strong supporter of campaign finance reform. (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of October as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. By increasing awareness of the prevalence of domestic violence, we hope that more victims come forward and make use of the services available to assist them. According to the U.S. Department of Justice domestic violence is defined as, a pattern of coercive behavior designed to exert power and control over a person in an intimate relationship through the use of intimidating, threatening, harmful, or harassing behavior. Partners may be married or not married, heterosexual or homosexual, separated or dating. Domestic violence is one of the most common and yet least talked about crimes. Nearly one in three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. Approximately four million American women experience a serious assault by an intimate partner each year. Every fifteen seconds in the United States a woman is brutally battered by her partner and a woman is raped every six minutes. During the course of this speech, 15 women will be battered and another will be raped. Children are also more likely to be abused in homes with domestic violence. Violence is a learned behavior and children who are abused, or who witness domestic violence, are more likely to abuse their own partners or children, creating a cycle of violence that is difficult to break. Domestic violence victims are not just those that have witnessed or been subjected to abuse. The impacts of abuse are felt by everyone in contact with the victim. It threatens the well-being of entire communities. Friends, family, co-workers, and communities are often called upon to help repair the lives shattered by domestic abuse. I became active in the struggle against domestic violence long before I came to Washington. As a prosecutor in the Middlesex County DA's Office, I created priority prosecution policies to put the most violent domestic abusers behind bars. In my first term in Congress I became involved in this issue nationally as an original co-sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA. I remain committed to preventing domestic violence and providing victims with the support that they need to this day. I was an active participant in strengthening VAWA with the passage of VAWA in 2000 and I was a co-sponsor of the Debbie Smith Act of 2003, which will improve the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault cases by using DNA evidence. This bill was included in the Justice for All Act of 2004 and became law on October 30, 2004. Sadly, we are not making as much progress as we need to on this issue. In fact, since 1974 the rate of assaults against women aged 20- 24 has increased almost 50 percent. We can and should do much more. We must continue to reach out to victims and restrain abusers. We need to craft stronger legislation and to change existing legislation to ensure that the protections and services included in VAWA extend to all our citizens. As we recognize National Domestic Violence Awareness Month let us renew our dedication to protecting our Nation's women, men and children from one of the greatest threats to the social fabric of America.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Rosa Louise Parks, a woman whose life was exemplified by quiet courage, strength and conviction. During her 92 years, Ms. Parks impressed all that all of us with a sense of the possible. It was possible to change Alabama segregation law by refusing to give up a bus seat, it was possible to change Jim Crow across America, and it was possible to do all this in a non- violent fashion. Her refusal to rise from her seat and subsequent arrest led to the 381-day Montgomery Bus Boycott and to the eventual repeal of the segregation laws of the South. Her individual act of defiance is considered by many to be the beginning of the civil rights movement. It would be easy to remember Rosa Parks solely for this event. However, her legacy is so much more. I will remember her as someone who was deeply committed to equality. I will remember her as someone who never sought out personal attention, yet whose great actions attracted admiration from all quarters. I will remember her as a role model and as a great American. However, without a doubt the best way that we can honor the life of Rosa Parks is not by erecting monuments or parading up and down the main streets of American towns and cities. This is not to say that we shouldn't honor her in this manner, but rather, we should continue her life's work and try to live by the ideals that she shared with all of us. We should encourage grassroots democracy for positive change in our districts. We should encourage non-violent action, to resist intolerance and discrimination much as Ms. Parks did. Above all, we should encourage Americans to continue the fight for civil rights and equality. The freedoms we enjoy today are because of the sacrifice of exceptional individuals like Rosa Parks who stood up to oppression and changed history. But Rosa Parks's greatest legacy is that she taught generations that acts of courage can precipitate great change. Let us celebrate the lifetime achievements of a truly remarkable woman.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I reluctantly support the BRAC recommendations today, and oppose this motion of disapproval pending before the House. I support these recommendations because I believe that the goals of BRAC are worthy--to maximize warfighting capability and efficiency for both traditional warfighting and counterterrorist efforts. An integrated military force able to communicate and coordinate effectively in response to conflict remains crucial to national security and the war on terrorism. I am concerned by technical errors and the overall process used by the Pentagon and the Base Realignment and Closure--BRAC--Commission to reach the recommendations before us this evening, and it is my hope that in the future, significant improvements will be made on the current model when realignment and closure decisions are made. However, within the current model, there are some successes to which we can point. For instance, the Pentagon and the BRAC Commission rightly highlighted the key role that Hanscom Air Force Base, located in my congressional district, plays in our national security efforts. The process reaffirmed Hanscom's role as the military's pre-eminent development center for communication and intelligence technologies. Hanscom will clearly play a central role as we transform our military in the coming decades. In its decisions on Hanscom, the BRAC process recognized that the success or failure of a base in fulfilling its mission relies on the availability of skilled and experienced personnel and the connections that develop in intellectual clusters. Unfortunately, the Commission wrongly decided to move an estimated 200 jobs from Hanscom's Air Force Research Lab--AFRL--Space and Sensors Directorates. Those functions are best left at Hanscom to maintain existing synergies and human capital. When the BRAC Commission held their New England Regional Hearing in Boston on July 6, I submitted testimony to the commission arguing that the decision to realign the AFRL at Hanscom was inconsistent with other aspects of the Pentagon's analysis of Hanscom, and could disrupt key programs operating there. I am deeply disappointed by the commission's decision to move these Directorates from their home at Hanscom. I am concerned that the recommendation to realign the AFRL did not appropriately value the highly skilled workforce currently at these facilities, and that the expertise of many of these employees will be lost as the recommendations are implemented. The relocation of AFRL's Sensors and Space Vehicles Directorates will result in significant costs with few gains. While I strongly protest this decision, I am pleased that overall, the commission's recommendations on Hanscom reaffirmed the value of the regional human capital capabilities in science and technology--and I am encouraged by the commission's indication that the Air Force will look to expand the mission at Hanscom outside of the BRAC process. I look forward to working with the Air Force as this process takes shape. With respect to the overall BRAC process, I am concerned by flaws in the current model that led to a number of errors. For instance, questions remain unanswered about the Pentagon's failure to consult with State governors, State adjutants general, and the Department of Homeland Security on decisions related to the National Guard and key homeland security functions located outside the Pentagon's bureaucracy. These questions resulted in lawsuits against the Pentagon and the BRAC Commission by a number of States, including my home State of Massachusetts. Additionally, a lack of organization was evident during the commission's consideration of the possible expansion of Hanscom, as well as the commission's overall recommendations related to Otis Air Force Base at Cape Cod. While I support the 2005 BRAC recommendations, I am deeply concerned that these types of errors set a bad precedent for future BRAC rounds. The Pentagon must ensure that the Department of Homeland Security and other relevant stakeholders are appropriately included in their process, and that our Nation's homeland security needs are fully evaluated.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, the Pentagon announced today that 2,000 American servicemen and women have been killed in Iraq. On this same day, Iraqi officials announced that Iraq's constitution was approved with nearly 80 percent of the vote. This progress on the political front is in stark contrast with the failure to set clear benchmarks on the security front. As the casualties continue to mount and rise, the Bush administration continues to refuse to lay out a strategy for a timeline for bringing our troops home. On this day of mourning, my thoughts and prayers are with the families who have lost their loved ones and with all of our soldiers still serving in Iraq today. On this day of mixed messages, I renew our call to the administration to outline their plans for bringing our troops home. The best way to honor our soldiers is to find a safe and responsible exit for them from a sovereign and independent Iraq.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, the gun industry would like to see this legislation passed today so that they can protect their profits. But I would like to talk about the real people who will be affected by this bill, people who have suffered enough. I would like to talk about a 26-year-old father of two from my home State of Massachusetts whose death was a direct result of negligence by a gun maker. Five years ago, Danny Guzman was leaving a holiday party to go home to see his daughters, Tammy and Selena, but he never made it home. Standing on the street, Danny Guzman was struck down by a stray bullet fired from a 9 millimeter handgun. That gun that killed him made its way into criminal hands because a gun factory employee had stolen it from his workplace and sold it on the black market. But this is no isolated incident. In that same year, over 25,000 guns hit America's streets after being stolen or lost under suspicious circumstances. And, according to court testimony in the case, stealing guns happened at the plant ``all the time,'' and it happened all the time because no system was in place to prevent theft. It happened all the time because the gun company was negligent. And, in this particular case, the employee got his job at the gun plant despite a criminal record that included a history of drug abuse, theft, and violence. Mr. Speaker, when big tobacco lied about the dangers of smoking, we held them accountable. When the pharmaceutical industry markets dangerous drugs, we hold them accountable, too. But what do we do when gun makers and dealers ruin countless lives through their reckless behavior, through their negligence? This House considers legislation to provide them special protection and to deny gun victims and their families the justice they deserve. If this bill becomes law, the Guzman family in Massachusetts, in addition to losing a husband, a son, and a father, will lose their right of legal recourse and justice. It would be an unspeakably cruel case of justice denied. I strongly oppose this legislation and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Businesses in the firearms industry do not deserve special treatment under the law.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor National Hispanic Heritage Month. Our nation's greatest strength is its heritage of diversity and this month is a tribute to the more than 35 million Americans who identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino and the many millions who came before them. We thank them for their contributions to America, from protecting the nation from its enemies, to representing it abroad and strengthening it from within. Hispanic Americans have flourished in every field, from politics to business to academia to entertainment. From the first Hispanic U.S. Congressman in 1822 to David Farragut, the first four-star Navy Admiral and famed Civil War leader, Hispanic Americans have played an integral part of our nation's history at every turn. That history of service and patriotism continues today with the more than 200,000 Hispanics currently in the Armed Services. We thank them, for every time they don the uniform they do it with honor. They have fought proudly and bravely and 41 men of Hispanic heritage have been honored with the Congressional Medal of Honor. There are countless more that go unthanked. They face danger every day in our streets and in our homes as first responders; as policemen, as firemen and as paramedics. I was proud to join the Immigration Sub-Committee of the House Judiciary Committee earlier this year. I will continue to fight for the rights of America's newest residents as they make the transition to citizens. America's immigrants become many of its most active participants in civic life and contributors to our vibrant culture. Over the last decade, I have been privileged to work with the Latino community, particularly on immigration issues and voter registration with Isabel Melendez. Her hard work organizing the Latino community to register and to get out and vote exemplifies the political activism thriving in the community. I am proud to say that Latinos in Lawrence are continually achieving a higher socioeconomic status and improving the quality of life for their families. As a natural result, more and more Latino candidates are running for, and being elected to, public office. In my own district, I am proud to honor Julia Silverio who became the first Dominican woman to win public office in New England when she was elected to the Lawrence City Council. She is a member of the Dominican American National Roundtable will receive its Leadership Award tomorrow on October 8th. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in celebrating National Hispanic Heritage Month. It honors a powerful and patriotic heritage that has made our nation stronger through its inclusion. Hispanic Americans have profoundly changed and improved this nation in every facet, from the international to the national to the local level. All Americans owe this group their gratitude and honor.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to Mary Rita Downing Gendron. Mary passed away on Wednesday, September 14, 2005, at the age of 84. Mary was born in Lowell on December 24, 1920, the daughter of John and Rose Purcell Downing. For 60 years, she was the beloved wife of the late Arthur W. Gendron, a former Lowell firefighter. Mrs. Gendron is survived by three daughters and two sons, Geraldine R. McSwiggin and her husband Jack of Dracut, William A. Gendron and his wife Paula Skrekas, Patricia A. Tobin and her husband Kevin, Christine G. Florence and her husband William, and Stephen J. Gendron and his wife Katherine Kijanka, all of Lowell, as well as a son-in-law Bruce G. Johnson, also of Lowell. She is also survived by four sisters-in-law, and three brothers-in- law, Barbara McSweeney Downing, formerly of Lowell, Leo and Terry Gendron, Francis and Jane Gendron, both of Lowell, and Gerald and Terry Gendron of Salem, NH. She was the mother of the late Mary R. Gendron Johnson, sister of the late John W. Downing, Harold Downing, Christine Downing Lisien, Gertrude and Madeline Downing, and the sister-in-law of the late Elizabeth Armstrong Downing, Walter Lisien, Gladys Gendron Lowell, Leighton, Leonard and Raymond Gendron. Mrs. Gendron leaves 20 grandchildren, Meredith Johnson Wall, Kirsten Johnson, Katie McSwiggin Cochran, Laurie McSwiggin Tirado, Maureen and John McSwiggin, Daniel, Tricia and Kristina Tobin, William, Maggie and Patrick Florence, Kathleen, Elena, William, Paul, Stephen, Matthew, Michael and Christopher Gendron, 3 great-grand-children, Julia and Hannah Cochran and Alex Tirado, and many nieces and nephews. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Congressional Record the eloquent words that Steven Gendron, Mary's son, wrote and delivered at his Mother's funeral. It is an honor for me to stand here today and share the collective reflections of my brother and sisters, Gerry, Billy, Patty, Chrissie and me, about the life of my Mom. I have to tell you, that everyone of us wanted to do this, but, I'm the baby, and I usually get my way. I stopped into a photo store a couple days ago to get copies of some pictures that we wanted to display at the wake and funeral. I explained to the saleswoman what I wanted, and I didn't notice an old acquaintance of mine standing at the counter just a few feet away. When the sales lady stepped away, the old friend surprised me by saying ``Are you having a celebration Steve?'' ``Oh Hi,'' I replied, ``No, actually, my Mom passed away yesterday and we just wanted to display some pictures at the wake.'' Now the woman felt bad and said, ``oh, I'm sorry to hear that.'' The sales lady returned and I finished my business, and as I walked out of the store, the old friend said, ``Steve, you know, it will be a celebration . . . a celebration of her life.'' I was touched by the comment and I said, ``you're right, it will be a celebration.'' So, we're happy to see all of you here today, to help us celebrate the life of a woman we all loved. And Mary loved to celebrate. She loved to dance, and she loved to sing. We can all remember her singing around the house all the time. I have a vivid memory of her when I was about 6 years old, one of those memories that is so clear it's like a little video clip in you're mind. She's walking across the kitchen, while I'm eating breakfast, snapping her fingers and singing, ``Nothing could be finer, than to be in Carolina, in the morning''. I don't think she'd ever been to Carolina, except maybe for a stopover on the drive down to Florida, but she liked the song, singing it made her happy, and it made us happy too. And she loved to be with her friends. Back in the old days there were the Bon Ton Girls, a group of high school friends that would hang together and go to dances. I saw a few of the Bon Ton Girls last night, and one of them told me how they would run their own fundraisers, to rent a place at the beach during the summer. Kay McCabe can give you more details on that little group if you're interested. And then there was the ``Club,'' the group of Gendron sisters-in-law, and a few honorary sisters-in-law, that would get together on Saturday evenings when the boys were off playing cards. We can remember them meeting in the ``parlor'', or front room, of our house on A Street. They'd bring their knitting, they'd sit, they'd chat and laugh up a storm. And then later in life there was the Clark Rd. knitting group that would get together for much the same type of thing on a regular basis. Mom was completely, and totally dedicated to her family. She could teach our politicians a few things about family values. And she probably learned those from her own close family growing up. Her brother Johnny was like a father to her, and Uncle John and Aunt Sis were like grandparents to us. She adored her sister Tina, and her brother Harold meant the world to her. In our family, she was our foundation; always in the background--always there to support us. Growing up my brother and sisters and I never really worried about anything. There was no problem that seemed too big, no hurdle that seemed too high, nothing we couldn't accomplish. Because our foundation was strong--Mom was always there to support and encourage us. Mom taught us many things. She taught us about love and commitment through her relationship with my father. For 60 years most everybody knew her as half of either Mary & Arthur, Ma & Dad or Nana & Grampy. It was a true lifelong love story. She waited for him while he fought the Nazis, and when he returned there was no turning back. Oh, don't get me wrong, they had trying moments like any couple, but in the end they cared more about each other than they did themselves. And there was never any question that they would be together to the end. Mary was truly a professional wife and mother. She had all the qualifications: Cooking: Mary would best be termed an Irish Cook. There was never a recipe book in our house, yet there was always a stew or spaghetti in the big silver pot on the stove, and if a few extra people showed up, well a can of soup and a bottle of ketchup could stretch it a long way. And you know, Arthur was one of those guys who expected dinner to be on the table and hot when he arrived home from work. In the morning, coffee was to be percolated, never that instant stuff. Well, Billy tells the story of how one morning he caught Mom reaching deep into the cabinet for a bottle of Taster's Choice. She gave him a wink and a ``Shhh'' as she poured it into the coffee pot. That morning, and every morning, Arthur thought the coffee was delicious. I wonder how many times it really was fresh brewed. Sewing: Mom's sewing machine was always humming, but her sewing skills mirrored her cooking skills. She was no seamstress but had functional sewing skills. She was good at modifying what she had, Gerry remembers her hemming and altering everything, and it wasn't uncommon for this year's new dress to be an updated version of last year's. Ironing: You haven't worn a shirt until you've worn one ironed by Mary Gendron. Never a wrinkle. She even put starch in your underwear. Except there was the time that she burned an iron-sized hole into Chrissie's bridesmaid dress, 2 days before Patty's wedding. Fortunately her functional sewing skills kicked in and she patched it up, and nobody knew the difference. Home Decorating: With the change of seasons Mom would make new curtains, rearrange the furniture or paint the room. It used to drive my Father crazy because she'd usually end up painting the windows shut. Shopping: Mom was the ultimate bargain hunter. She loved nothing more to spend the days with Mrs. Barrows or one of her other ``chums'', as she would call them, out sifting through the bins in search of a good deal. She was always in search of something nice for her kids or grandkids at a price that fit her budget. Typing: My mother was actually an accomplished secretary. She could type like the wind and she was an excellent speller. She never obtained a college degree, but based on the number of college papers she proofread and typed, we figure she's earned at least six. Mom was so proud of her kids and her grandkids. She'd beam when she told you that we were all college educated and successful in our careers. And her pride only increased as our own families began to blossom. She treated her daughters and sons-in-law as if they were her own, and she always made time for each of her 20 grandchildren and 3 great- grandchildren, making each one of them feel special. As you all know, for the last 10 years or so, my mother has been a victim of Alzheimer's Disease. It is a terrible disease that my father once termed a ``living death''. At first, the symptoms she exhibited are those that most people are familiar with, such as forgetfulness and disorientation. But as the symptoms become more debilitating, she became harder and harder to care for. Thank God for my Dad, who truly rose to the occasion, keeping her at home much longer than would normally have been possible. But ultimately, we were forced to provide professional care for her. This is when we found Life Care Center of the Merrimack Valley. I have to tell you, our first impression of the place was not good. In fact, it was horrible. Mom's transition was painful. She fought every step of the way. There were many tears. But slowly, Mom and the rest of us began to grow accustomed to her new environment. Slowly, we began to learn about the later stages of this disease and how to cope with it. We learned that Mom and the other residents of the unit, while trapped inside their own bodies, could give you a glimpse of their personalities if you worked at it. Slowly, all of us, children, spouses and grandchildren, learned not to be afraid of these patients, but instead to embrace them and try to make their lives just a little more pleasant. In doing so, we all made new friends. We can't say enough about the caregivers at Life Care. They treat each resident with respect and dignity, while somehow maintaining their sense of humor. They are truly doing God's work on earth. Mom had found a new family there, and so had we. So, in the final years of her life, nearly helpless, and unable to communicate, Mom still had something else to teach us. This time she taught us about compassion. And do you know, that even in her challenged condition, she could spell almost any word you asked, she could recite the Lord's Prayer in its entirety, and she could still sing. She could sing When Irish Eyes are Smiling from beginning to end, Let me call you Sweetheart and yes, ``Nothing could be Finer than to be in Carolina in the Morning.'' I guess some memories never fade. In the end, Mary became as comfortable at Life Care as anyone could in her condition. She became known around the nursing home as Mary, the girl who liked to dance. The last time I saw her, just a week ago, my son Mike and I walked her up and down the halls of the nursing home. At least 15 employees stopped us along the way and gave her a big hello, and some did a little dance with her. Mary gave them all a smile, and it prompted Mike to say, ``Boy Dad, Nana's really popular.'' In fact, one of the nurses told me last night that Mary, was. In closing, I have to say how proud I am to be a part of this family. During both Mom and Dad's illness, everybody stepped up to the plate. Thank God Chrissie chose to pursue the medical profession, she was always the first phone call, and always there to put the medical jargon in laymans terms. We truly valued her advice. And Gerry is just always there. Whatever you need, whatever you want, Gerry will get it for you, even if it means great inconvenience to her own family. Billy was the father-figure, always there for the heavy lifting, and to take care of the business end of things. And Patty was the principal, the peacemaker, always keeping the communication lines open, and keeping us sane. As Chrissie put it, everybody contributed, and nobody wimped out. I think Mom and Dad are proud of us today. When you leave today, if you should think about Ma, or Mary, or Nana in the future, we hope you don't think about the woman afflicted with Alzheimer's Disease. We hope you think about the woman who enjoyed the simple things in life, a woman content to be the quiet foundation of the family, a woman who would sing while serving breakfast, and the woman who may well have left us with words from the song that my sisters chose for the back of the program today: I hope you still feel small when you stand beside the ocean. Whenever one door closes, I hope that one more opens. Promise me that you'll give faith the fighting chance. And if you get the chance to sit it out or dance. I hope you dance.