Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. No, I'm sorry, because you have a half an hour and I don't.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I congratulate him on his tremendous leadership as the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee. When he was speaking today, I was thinking back to when I was a relatively new Member of Congress--not even here 2 years--when we had the Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area. It was shocking to us. Of course, it was a complete surprise--a terrible natural disaster. The Bay Bridge was out of commission and cracked. The homes were on fire for days and days and days--a true natural disaster. When I came to the floor when this issue was brought up by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Honorable Jamie Whitten of Mississippi, he came to the floor; and with his words of comfort and assurance to the people who were affected by this natural disaster, his comments made all the difference in the world. In listening to him, no one had any doubt that the Federal Government was going to honor its commitment to the American people: that when in time of natural disaster, we will be there. We have a compact with the American people. How different the conversation is today when we're talking about saying, when in a time of natural disaster--and by the way, there have been many more natural disasters than in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Loma Prieta, which stretched for long distances in northern California. Today, we've had hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, forest fires still raging out of control in some parts of the country--Texas, until recently, in that situation. I hope that it's under control now or that the rain we all prayed for there is coming. And what do we do? We come to the floor and say, Now we're going to institute a new policy that says: in time of natural disaster, we're going to have to find some place to pay for it. Now, what's next? Where are we going next to pay for it? The distinguished chairman has said, well, we've paid for emergencies before and, indeed, we have. I'm talking about something of a much different caliber. I'm talking about a natural disaster. I'm talking about the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund. With all of the disasters that are happening at once, we don't know when the next one will come; but what is frightening also is we don't know where this majority wants to go to pay for it. I have serious objection to the pay-for in this legislation. I have a bigger objection that we would have to pay for a disaster. We never paid for the tax cuts for the rich. They never were paid for. We never paid for the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. They were never paid for. But, all of a sudden, we have to pay to try to make whole these people who have been affected, who have lost everything. I've visited there. I wish you would. Maybe you have. But it's not that the joblessness story is finished. It's not that as we go to a new disaster, we're finished with the old one. It's just compounded. Someone mentioned earlier in the election--people talked about this-- that the American people, whether in election or out of election, want jobs; and exactly what this bill does is cut jobs. Instead of creating jobs, which is the number one priority of the American people, this Republican bill will cost good-paying jobs. It's amazing because the bill that we're debating here will cost at least 10 good-paying American manufacturing jobs--Make It in America--and perhaps tens of thousands more by cutting the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program. I'm not even going to speak too much about it because our colleagues already have. They've talked about how this takes us to the next place in innovation and competitiveness for our country, the next place in technology for cars that will reduce emissions, which will help to stop some of these natural disasters. These loans are proven to be effective. They have already created 42,000 jobs, putting America to work making cleaner, more efficient American cars. We shouldn't have to choose between creating jobs and caring for those struggling in the aftermath of disasters like Hurricane Irene and the earthquake that preceded it and the floods that continue. One of the speakers, a gentleman whom I respect, said this is a political move. Well, if there is anything that is not political in our country, it is a natural disaster. Do you want to talk politics when somebody is suffering a natural disaster? There is no place for that. At some place, we walk on a ground that is more hallowed than the normal terrain on which we debate, and that terrain is the terrain of the disaster that has affected the American people. If you looked in their eyes, you would feel so helpless that you could not make them whole. You may not be able to provide them the personal effects of their families. I've seen it so many times. Will they economically be made whole? Will their homes be restored in a way that makes it the home it was before that they loved, that created a sense of community, one home after another? So we're at a very, very sad place for all of these people. We don't know who is next. What makes me suspicious about what the majority has put into this-- and I want you to know this--is we haven't paid for natural disaster assistance before. They're using this advanced technology vehicle manufacturing. They're taking $1 billion of it to pay for the disaster. There is a half a billion dollars left, and they're rescinding it in this bill. They're eliminating it. So this isn't about paying for the disaster. This is about destroying an initiative that is job-creating, that is innovative, that keeps America number one, that creates good- paying jobs in our country. It's really hard to understand what the motivation is for that, but one thing is clear--they are using the disaster to eliminate that initiative, and that's just not right. But even if they had the best offset in the world, I still think it is wrong for them to go down a path that says, This time, for your disaster, we're using this technology program. What's next? With all of the disasters that we have, where do we have the room to say, On those days, at that specific time, this is how we'll pay for it? Let's, instead, do something that gives hope to people, that creates an economic boomlet in these places that have been affected and not a discouragement that they are being treated differently than anybody else has been in time of natural disasters. I heard the distinguished chairman use the term ``emergency.'' It's a different story. It's a different story. It is with great sadness that we try to meet the needs of people at this difficult time. It's in great sadness that we even have to have a debate about it. I urge our Republican colleagues to withdraw this bill. Come back clean. Let us vote together to address the natural disaster that has afflicted our country, recognizing that we don't know what's around the corner. As one of my colleagues said, We said we're going to pay for everything. We don't know what God has in store for us for the next disaster. We hope and pray that, whatever it is, we have the strength to meet the needs of our people in a way that has nothing to do with politics but everything to do with America. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote against this, reluctantly, because I would love for us to join together but not in its present form.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his tremendous leadership on behalf of America's workers. Thank you, Mr. Andrews, for your leadership. Mr. Speaker, across the country, Americans of every political party and every background--Democrats, Republicans, independents, and others--agree that our Nation's top priority must be the creation of jobs and economic growth and security. Yet for more than 250 days, the Republican majority in the House has refused to listen to them. They, the Republicans, have failed to enact a single jobs bill. And the American people do not have the luxury of waiting any longer for Congress to act to create jobs. The President has proposed the American Jobs Act. He's called upon us to pass the bill now. We support that, as do the Democratic Members of the House. But today, instead of passing a jobs bill, we are wasting the time of the Congress by attacking workers instead of strengthening them. We are debating a bill to undermine the foundation of our middle class instead of fighting to put people to work rebuilding our roads, bridges, railways, broadband lines, schools, airports, and water systems. We are voting on a measure to send jobs overseas instead of focusing on how to keep jobs here at home through our Make it in America initiative advanced by our Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer. Make it in America--how to strengthen our economy and our national security by stopping the erosion of our manufacturing base, indeed, by strengthening our manufacturing and industrial base. I want to recognize my colleague, Congressman George Miller, the ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for his leadership, his knowledge, and not only his intellect but his passion and tireless advocacy on the subject of America's workers. As Congressman Miller has said, our Republican colleagues have proposed the so-called outsourcers' bill of rights or as I prefer to call it, the Outsourcers' Bill of Wrongs--because this legislation has the wrong priorities for America's economy and for American workers. The bill is about more than one company or a single case; it is about the economic security of America's workforce and families. Rather than create jobs, this measure encourages the outsourcing of jobs and undermines the rights of middle class workers. This bill cuts the National Labor Relations Board, makes it easier for corporations to ship jobs overseas, and allows employers to punish their employees for simply exercising their rights to organize, to demand better benefits and safer working conditions, and to ensure a full day's pay for a full day's work. For months in Wisconsin, Ohio, and States nationwide, Americans have seen Republican Governors and legislatures attack teachers and public servants. And we've seen these workers, union and nonunion alike, inspire the Nation to fight back. Now Republicans have brought their assault on working Americans to our Nation's Capitol, to the floor of the House, claiming their actions will help the economy. But it will do just the opposite. It will weaken our workers, our middle class, and our families--indeed, the cornerstones of our economic prosperity, of our middle class, and of our democracy. The ``Outsourcers' Bill of Wrongs''--or Rights--is not about jobs; it's about dismantling protections established specifically to strengthen the rights of workers. We need these protections now more than ever. Listen to this: Last year, American companies created 1.4 million jobs overseas--overseas--while raking in enormous profits. We must create these jobs here at home. Democrats will stand strong for our working men and women. We will stay focused on jobs and economic growth. On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, the other night I had one of the thrills of my political lifetime. I received--such an honor for me--the Frances Perkins Award from my colleague, Lynn Woolsey, a champion for working families in our country. For those of you who may not know Frances Perkins from history, she was the first woman to serve in the Cabinet of a President of the United States. She was the Secretary of Labor. And she was responsible for many important initiatives: the 40-hour workweek, the ability for workers to bargain collectively. She was a remarkable champion for working people in our country. She was largely responsible for creating Social Security. Imagine having that as her credentials. Imagine what a thrill it was for me to receive an award named for her, especially given by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, a champion on the Education and Workforce Committee. Much of what she did, the credit was given to the President of the United States, as is appropriate. More than 75 years ago, upon the signing of the National Labor Relations Act, President Franklin Roosevelt said this: ``By preventing practices which tend to destroy the independence of labor, this law seeks, for every worker within its scope, that freedom of choice and action which is justly his.'' I guess he could have said his or hers. That ``independence,'' that ``freedom of choice and action'' has rested at the core of a growing, thriving American workforce. It has not limited the ability of companies to move, change, or extend their operations. It has simply ensured that companies treat their workers in ways consistent with the laws of our land. The independence and freedom of our workers have helped build and expand our middle class, which is the backbone of our democracy, and drive unprecedented prosperity for our families and for our Nation, and it must be preserved in our time. I call upon my colleagues to do just that, to preserve this right in our time. I call upon my colleagues to oppose this legislation, to uphold the value of fairness for our workforce, and to get to work putting the American people back to work by bringing President Obama's bill, the American Jobs Act, to committee and to the floor to again give people hope and confidence and the dignity of a job.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness I rise to pay tribute to a beloved San Franciscan, Ruth Brinker, who died Monday, August 8th in San Francisco. Ruth was a visionary hero who brought healing to San Francisco at a time of horrific tragedy in our city's history. In 1985, the AIDS epidemic was ravaging San Francisco. A retired widow and grandmother who loved to cook, and volunteered for Meals on Wheels, Ruth noticed that malnutrition was killing many who were terminally ill with AIDS before the disease took its toll, but there were no social service agencies providing meals to those too weak from AIDS or too impoverished to feed themselves. First in her kitchen, and then in a church basement, Ruth prepared delicious meals to deliver to seven San Franciscans wasting away from AIDS. She solicited volunteers and within a few years, one woman's attempt to nurture and care for a handful of people living with AIDS grew into an organization serving 500 meals a day. As the epidemic spread, Project Open Hand expanded its nutritional services for those with disabling HIV, and, years later, broadened its mission to include ``meals with love'' for homebound and critically ill clients, seniors and the disabled. They also extended their reach beyond San Francisco to Alameda County. Long before the advent of powerful medications to control HIV/AIDS, Project Open Hand's home-cooked meals and groceries were a lifeline to the ill and isolated individuals battling this devastating disease. Project Open Hand has been using ``food as medicine'' with great compassion and care for 26 years, bringing dignity and independence to those it serves. Now in its 26th year, Project Open Hand delivers 3,500 meals every day and serves as a model to more than a hundred organizations in the United States, and increasingly around the world. In 2005, Ruth received the prestigious Jefferson Award for public service. In 2007, I was proud to nominate Project Open Hand for the national Victory Against Hunger Award from Congress. Last year, Project Open Hand honored her with its Visionary Award which will now be named in her honor. As our nation marks 30 years since the first AIDS diagnosis, we are inspired by the commitment and compassion of Ruth Brinker in the earliest days of the epidemic. I hope it is a comfort to her daughters Lisa and Sarah, her grandson Max and great-granddaughter Bailey that so many people loved Ruth and will never forget her. Her wonderful spirit and her legacy will live on in the hundreds of meal-delivery organizations worldwide that she inspired and the millions who have received food and love because of Ruth's courage and compassion.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And every chance I get, I want to salute him for his tremendous leadership as the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, for the work he did with Mr. Clyburn in the bipartisan talks, as they strove to have what the American people want: a balanced, bipartisan, fair agreement to lift the debt ceiling and take America forward. Unfortunately, that did not happen. What did happen, and it brings to mind the existential question, why are we here? And I would divide, as we say in legislation, I would divide that question into why are we here, and why are we here today? We are here because all of us in this body care about our country, have decided that public service is a noble pursuit, and that we have come here to make the future better for future generations. That is what our Founding Fathers visualized for America, that every generation would take responsibility to make the future better for the next. That is why, Mr. Speaker, our Founders, in addition to writing our founding documents, the Declaration, the great Declaration, which embodies fairness in it and equality, then the Constitution, they declared independence, they fought the greatest naval power in the world, they won, they wrote the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, making us the freest, greatest Nation in the world, founded on a principle of respect that all people are created equal. That had never been done in the history of the world. And when they did that, as I have told you before, because I love it so much, they also created the Great Seal of the United States. And that Great Seal of the United States has on it ``Novus Ordo Seclorum,'' a new order for the centuries, for the ages, forever. So confident were our Founders in their idea about generational responsibility, one to the next, that they were confident that our country, that what they were putting forth, would exist for the ages. For the ages. That was the challenge they gave us. That is the responsibility that we have. And for a couple of hundred years or more, that has always been the case. Every generation has always believed that it would make the future better for the next, for their children and for their grandchildren. We are here today because we believe that, and we believe that the public policy that we put forth, the legislation we put forth, should result in public policy that makes the future better for our children and our grandchildren. That we are committed to their education, the economic security of our families, the dignified retirement of our seniors, including my being a senior, and also safety and security of our neighborhoods and of our country, and that we would do it in a fiscally sound way that did not give our kids any bills, public or personal. So if we believe all of that, and that's why we are here in Congress, it's hard to believe that we are putting our best foot forward with the legislation that comes before us today. I am not happy with it, but I am proud of some of the accomplishments contained in it. And that's why I am voting for it. That takes me to the second question: Why are we here today? Why are we here today, within 24 hours of our Nation going into default, after months of conversation about how we would address the debt ceiling? Not to have future spending, but to pay our past obligations. And I won't go into it again, how we got here. But I will say that time is one of the most important commodities any of us have, the most precious, the most finite. And during that period of time, when our country could have been more productive, more optimistic, more confident in the tradition of our Founders, instead, a cloud of doubt was placed on it because of the delay, the delay, the delay in lifting the debt ceiling. As my distinguished colleague Mr. Van Hollen said, this has never happened before. We have never, never tied the hands of a President of the United States. We never placed any doubt in the public markets as to whether this would happen. We never had people around the boardroom tables all wondering if we even knew the consequences of our inaction. But I am concerned about the boardroom table. I am more concerned also about the kitchen table. Because this delay and uncertainty has a tremendous impact on America's families as they sit around the table and talk about how they're going to make ends meet, how they're going to pay their bills. Is Social Security going to be intact for them? Will their checks arrive this week or next week, whenever they're due? Is Medicare and Medicaid something that they can count on? Well, after months and months and months to reach an agreement that could have been reached a long time ago--it is not so great it took so long to achieve; it could have been accomplished months ago, and at least had the merit of instilling confidence earlier, sooner, rather than at the latest possible moment. So we must make sure that we are, as we say why are we here today, that we are not here some other day to go through these motions. That's another reason why I am supporting this bill, because the President was successful in impressing upon the Congress that we needed the full time, the 18 months so that we can have Americans' kitchen table--people sitting around that table and sitting around the boardroom table would all know that you can rely on the United States of America to meet its obligations. Okay? Another reason to support this bill, even though there are plenty of reasons not to, is that it stops cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This is the most important assignment given to the Democratic leadership going to the table: Make sure there are no cuts in benefits in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That was achieved. Another issue of importance to us is that as we protect and defend our country, we also measure our strength in the health, education, and well-being of the American people. And so we have a 50-50 split between our expenditures for defense and our expenditures for strength defined in other ways for our country. So these are some reasons. While those who may have the luxury of not wanting to vote for the bill, I feel a responsibility to do so. We cannot, because of certain objections in the bill--and one of the main ones is that there is not one red cent coming from America's wealthiest families, the most successful people, and God bless them for their success, and I know that they are willing to do more, but not one red cent coming to help reduce the deficit while we are willing to cut Title I education for the poorest children in America. And that's too bad for those children. It's terrible for our country. So, again, you can make a list of things in the bill that we do not like and things that are not in the bill, like revenue, but I urge my colleagues to think about our seniors and to think about the 18 months and what that means in terms of confidence in our society and what it means also to have the 50-50 in terms of defining the strength of America. We cannot, despite our reluctance to vote for this bill for some of us, allow America's seniors and veterans, who are depending on receiving their check from the government or their security over time-- we cannot allow our seniors and veterans to be caught in the collateral damage of the assault on the middle class that is being waged in this Congress. This is one manifestation of making it harder for the future, for the great middle class which is, and those who aspire to it, which is the backbone of our democracy. So if we are going to honor the vows of our Founders and carry on the great legacy and tradition of their optimism, their determination, their hope for the future that we would last for ages, we would last for ages as a democracy, not an ever broadening disparity of income and equity in our country that undermines that democracy. So, please, my colleagues, if you are on the fence about this--I certainly am and have been, even though I worked very hard to support the President in preserving what I said about no cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, about the 18 months and about the 50/50 split--please think of what could happen if we defaulted. Please, please, please come down in favor of, again, preventing the collateral damage from reaching our seniors and our veterans. I urge you to consider voting ``yes,'' but I completely respect the hesitation that Members have about this. Again, I want to commend our distinguished colleagues, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Clyburn, the President of the United States, and, really, those who tried to work in a bipartisan way to try to accomplish something. Now, I hear that our Republican colleagues have said they got 98 percent of what they want in the bill. I hope that their votes will reflect that.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I too want to join our colleagues in recognizing the contribution of the pages to the conduct of the House of Representatives. I thank them, and they have, as Mr. Kildee said and others have mentioned, borne witness to many important historical occasions here. But I can't think of any that is more special and means so much to our country than to witness the return of our colleague who is the personification of courage, of sincerity, of admiration throughout the country. Congresswoman Gabby Giffords brings us here. Her presence today will make sure that we honor the obligations of our great country; it is important and symbolic. Her presence here in the Chamber as well as her service throughout her entire service in Congress brings honor to this Chamber. We are all privileged to call her ``colleague''; some of us are very privileged to call her ``friend.'' Throughout America, there isn't a name that stirs more love, more admiration, more respect, more wishing for our daughters to be like her than the name of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Thank you, Gabby.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I applaud him for his superb leadership of this bill today. I recognize the great leadership of Mr. Van Hollen as the ranking member on the Budget Committee and he and Mr. Clyburn representing the values of the American people at the negotiating table for this. I rise in support of the Reid legislation and urge my colleagues to support it because it protects Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, because it is fair. But I want to use my time in the following way. I listened very carefully and very attentively to our Speaker yesterday when he spoke, and he used the term the bill is not perfect, but we did ``our level best.'' ``Our level best.'' One might infer from that that this process is on the level. How can it be on the level if we're bringing a $2\1/2\ trillion bill to the floor under suspension the same way we might bring the naming of a post office? It's $2\1/2\ trillion, 20 minutes on each side. Members have said, on both sides of the aisle, this is a very important debate. Well, if it is, why is it brought under suspension, which requires a two-thirds vote, guaranteeing that it will not prevail? Not on the level. The word ``level,'' of course, enters into is this a level playing field? Is it on the level for America's seniors to pay more for Medicare for fewer benefits while we give tax subsidies to Big Oil? Is it on the level for us to throw people out of nursing homes by reducing Medicaid so we can give tax breaks to corporations sending jobs overseas? Is it on the level for us to make young people and their families pay more for their college education so we can give tax breaks to the high end? Is it on the level to bring a Boehner bill to the floor that makes all of those cuts, undermines Social Security, eliminates Medicare, and that does not charge one red cent to people who have benefited so much from the greatness of our country? Is it our best? Is it our best to drag this out for all this time to keep in suspense as to whether we would honor our constitutional responsibility to pay our debts? The Constitution says the national debt has to be recognized. And recognize we did, President after President, 32 times in recent memory--including when President Bush was President; at that time, even though many of us did not agree with the war in Iraq, did not agree to the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, did not agree to the giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. We didn't agree with that policy. That's how we got into debt, turning around from the surplus direction we were going in with President Clinton whose last four budgets were in balance or in surplus. We didn't agree how President Bush took us into debt, but we never, never stood in the way of honoring the full faith and credit of the United States. Why, then, would we, this one time with this President, decide that we would put up barriers so extreme like changing the Constitution in order to lift the debt limit as a mathematical requirement? Of course, we must all reduce the deficit. But is it our best to say we're going to use the debate to reduce the deficit to destroy to the public space? Look at the appropriations bills they're bringing before us. Destroying the public space of clean air, clean water, food safety, the education of our children, the financial security of our seniors through Medicare and Medicaid. That's what they are doing. If we are just reducing the deficit here, we have come to those conclusions. We have to do it. We know how to do it. But if they want to take it to the next step of destroying the public sector, we cannot go to that place when it affects the air our children breathe, the water they drink, the food they eat, the education they receive, the safety of the neighborhoods in which they live. The Speaker also said that the bill was not perfect. Well, no bill is perfect. But I think I disagree in one respect. I think this bill is perfect in its absurdity. His bill was perfectly absurd. It's perfectly absurd, again, to say to our President, after 32 times lifting the debt ceiling: We're going to change the game for you, Mr. President. It's perfectly absurd for them to say that the bill they brought to the floor, the Boehner bill that they brought to the floor, was in agreement of the four leaders of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans. Either you don't know what you're talking about or it's a perfect absurdity.

Ms. PELOSI. I will not yield to you. It is very, very important that we all take a deep breath. We have important work to do, an important decision to make. Senator Reid has given us a direction to go. No cuts in benefits for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security beneficiaries. I wish that we had revenues in there so that those who had benefited from the greatness of the last 50 years of bipartisan progress for the American people would be able to make their contribution, but there is not one red cent of revenue while we're saying kids should pay more for their student loans. So it's time to end this theater of the absurd. It's time for us to get real. It's time for us to get real and listen to the wisdom of the American people. They have said to us that they support, in overwhelming numbers, a bipartisan, balanced approach, in overwhelming numbers that we should all pay our fair share. And they all agree that we should get this over with so we can get back to work putting the American people back to work by creating jobs. The Speaker chose, when he didn't have the votes, instead of reaching out in a bipartisan way to see how we could work together, he chose to go to the dark side. I repeat, he chose to go to the dark side by putting forth a bill that he, himself, told his members would sink in the Senate, and I add, lead to default. We cannot default. We're the greatest country that ever existed in the history of the world. We're the United States of America. So let's go from the dark side to the bright side of the American people. Vote ``yes'' on the Reid bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and commend her and her colleagues on the Rules Committee for their important work in bringing legislation to the floor. Madam Speaker, the clock is ticking. The clock is ticking on the need for us to raise the debt ceiling so that we do not default on our past obligations, that we uphold the full faith and credit of the United States of America. As we continue this debate today, one thing is very clear to me. If our goal were to find deficit reduction in a balanced, bipartisan way, we could certainly do that. We've had models by Simpson-Bowles. We've had the Gang of Six. We've had the President's conversations with Speaker Boehner. We could find a path to very serious deficit reduction, but I think it has become very clear that that is not the goal of the Republicans in the House of Representatives. They keep moving the goalpost, making it very evident that their goal is to reduce the public role in the lives of the American people. That's why, in other legislation on the floor, like the Interior bill that has been debated, you see the abandoning of clean air standards, clean water, food safety. I've said before I come to this Congress as a mother and a grandmother. We all want to do the best for our children personally, but we need a public role in their education and, again, in clean air, clean water, food safety. We can't do that for ourselves, but part of the Republican plan is to unravel 50 years--five decades at least--of bipartisan progress on behalf of America's middle class families. Flatout, this bill and the other bills accompanying it will end Medicare, will end Medicare, will say to seniors, You will pay more for your health care costs to get less so that we can give tax subsidies to Big Oil. We will say to those families, We're going to cut Medicaid. What that means to seniors in nursing homes is that we will give tax breaks to corporations sending jobs overseas. We will say to the young people, You're going to pay more for your college loans so that we can give tax cuts to the people at the highest end. We all know that we have to participate in reducing the deficit. Everybody has to ante up. Why is it that the Republicans insist on having the middle class pay the price so that the high end is off the hook? If we are concerned about addressing the problems of the American people, we would end this debate. This bill is going nowhere. It is a total waste of time. Every day that we spend on these wastes of time that are not going anywhere is another day we are not talking about the highest priority of the American people, which is job creation, job creation, job creation. That is their priority. We have an obligation to reduce the deficit and get on with it so we can create jobs. If we are concerned about the economic security of the American people and their families, we must recognize that, since the Republicans' most recent walking away from the table--they've done it on more than one occasion, but last Friday the Speaker and the Republicans walked away from the table--the stock market has dropped 483 points, and the American people have lost over $400 billion in their personal assets, $400 billion. Every day that goes by and if the market goes down any more, it comes right out of what the American people have in their 401(k)s, in their pensions and other pensions, and in their savings for their children's educations. I remember when we had the debate on TARP. We cooperated with President Bush at that time to bring legislation to the floor. It was very unpopular. It was probably the most unpopular vote any of us will have to take, but we were on the brink of a financial crisis, and we had to act; but the Republicans did not step up to the plate, and the market went down 777 points the next day. Is that what they're waiting for, for the market to go down not 485 points in the last few days but hundreds of points more, diminishing the personal assets and wealth of the American people? I certainly hope not. When the Speaker walked away and he made his statement, Speaker Boehner, our Speaker, said that we couldn't reach agreement, words to that effect, that we couldn't connect because we have different visions of America. I believe the Speaker when he speaks, but I don't believe we have different visions of America. President Obama's vision of America is one where we are committed to the education of our children so they can reach their personal fulfillment and so our country through innovation can continue to be number one--committed to creating jobs, good-paying jobs, for America's workers. I think that vision is the vision of the American people, the high ground of where we share values: in the education of our children, jobs for our workers, in the dignified retirement and health security for our seniors, and in the personal safety and national security of our people--all done in a fiscally sound way. I think that that's common ground on the high ground of values. If you believe that, if you agree with those values, as I think Speaker Boehner must agree with President Obama on that vision of America, you couldn't possibly vote for any of the legislation that the Republicans are bringing to the floor in these few days--you couldn't possibly-- because they do undermine the education of our children, the financial and health security of our seniors. The deep cuts early on hurt the economic recovery and the creation of jobs. This isn't done in a fiscally sound way as we've taken revenue off the table. Fifty-seven percent of the American people at least think we should have a balanced, bipartisan agreement to end this default and to do so in a way that doesn't take us down this path again. So let's be clear. What is on the floor today is a balanced budget. Balanced in what way? Balanced in whose favor? It looks like a seesaw to me in favor of the ``haves'' at the expense of a great middle class in our country. It must be rejected. For every day that we waste on another Republican ideological ploy or scheme is another day that we are not creating jobs. Since the Republicans took office, which is over 200 days ago--last Saturday it was 200 days, going on 207--the only bills that they have brought to the floor which they claim to be jobs bills are not job creators; they are job losers. H.R. 1 loses about 700,000 jobs--H.R. 2, a similar number; H.R. 34, a similar number with nearly 2 million jobs lost. Almost 10,000 jobs a day they're losing. Their infrastructure bill that they have brought in to committee--they haven't voted on it yet, thank God--is estimated to lose another 700,000 jobs when it's supposed to be the big job creator. Even the Chamber of Commerce has rejected it as something that will not only not create jobs but will lose current jobs. So let's get on with the business of job creation. Let's really be honest about what we're here to do in terms of deficit reduction and not use it as an engine for the destruction of the public role that is so important in the defense of our country, in the health of our children, in the security of our seniors and their retirements, and in the vitality and innovation of our economy--and again, do it in a way that is fiscally sound. I don't want to go into how we got here in the first place. Whatever it is, we have to go forward, and we must go forward in the way the American people want us to do: bipartisan, balanced, and with an eye to job creation. Reject what is on the floor now and support the American people. We owe it to honor the sacrifices of our Founders, the vision of our Founders, the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, the aspirations of our children and our families. This budget should be a statement of values that honors all of that, and if we are to honor that, we must reject what is being proposed here today.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend him for his tremendous leadership. We couldn't be prouder of the way he has represented the values of the American people, both as the ranking member of the Budget Committee and also at the table in the bipartisan talks with Mr. Clyburn under the leadership of Vice President Biden. It's too bad that the progress that was made in those meetings, to have a balanced, bipartisan initiative to bring to the floor, to give confidence to the markets, and to give confidence to the American people, did not succeed because the Republicans walked away from those talks. Mr. Speaker, last week, our Speaker, Speaker Boehner, said he couldn't reach an agreement with President Obama because they have different visions of our country. President Obama shares the vision of the American people. When we look to find our common ground and take it to a higher ground, I think all Americans agree that we want to educate our children for their own self- fulfillment but also to keep America number one by having innovation, which springs from education and from the classroom. I think all Americans share the higher ground, the common ground when it comes to the creation of jobs, good-paying jobs here in America for the economic stability of America's families and of our economy. I think all Americans agree that we must have a dignified retirement for our seniors, where they have health and economic security. That's why Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are so important to the American people. I think all Americans agree that we must keep the American people safe, both in our national security and our economic security, and we must do so in a fiscally sound way without adding to the deficit. That is President Obama's vision of our country, and I'm sure that Speaker Boehner must share those views. So if that is the reason, the different vision of our country, maybe it is, hopefully it is not. Hopefully they share that vision. Why are we where we are today? I believe it is because it wasn't about not sharing a vision for our country. I believe it is because the purpose of these talks was to reduce the deficit. My belief is that the Republicans came to the table not to reduce the deficit, but to go way beyond that and to dismantle decades of progress made in a bipartisan way for America's great middle class. If, in fact, the purpose was deficit reduction in a very strong way, we were on that path. In the Biden talks and in the talks subsequent to it, we all agreed that there had to be substantial cuts, that we had to subject Federal dollars spent to make sure that we got our money's worth for U.S. taxpayers. Democrats wanted revenue. We wanted sharing of the sacrifice in all of this. Republicans did not. But we still could come to a place, as Senator Reid did and as our distinguished ranking member referenced, to a place that used the proposals that Republicans had in the Ryan budget and in proposals that they had agreed to in the talks to reach a strong deficit reduction number that would enable us to come to agreement and to put this matter to rest until February of 2013, so we would remove all doubt in the markets that we were going to honor our debts, we were not going to default on previous spending. The purpose was not to lift the ceiling so we could spend more. The purpose was to lift the ceiling so we could pay for previous obligations, and that there would be that 18 months of certainty. Instead, the Republicans have come forth with a proposal that, as I said, dismantled. This isn't about deficit reduction. This is about dismantling the public sector. And in doing so, they want to do it for 6 months, which means the minute this thing would be accomplished, and God forbid that it would be accomplished, we would have to start all over again. I believe the American people are disappointed that this has taken so long, then angry that it is happening because of the uncertainty it brings to their lives, and, next, disgusted with the whole process. And they are so rightly so, because if our purpose is to reduce the deficit, we certainly can do that. If our purpose is to dismantle progress to the middle class, we won't be a party to it. I think that the 6-month plan, not only in terms of uncertainty, is also a job killer. It has front-loaded cuts that will deter, impede the growth of our economy, our comeback, and, again, kill jobs. Every day that we are debating this is another day that we are not talking about job creation. Every day. Republican bills that they have brought to the floor in the first 200 days of their majority, now it's 205, would amount to nearly 2 million jobs lost, just under 10,000 jobs a day lost by the proposals they have brought to the floor. The American people's top priority is the creation of jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. Instead of this prolonged dismantling of the public sector attempt, we should instead have reached agreement--we still can--on a balanced bipartisan approach. I want to say something as a mom about this dismantling of the public sector. I view my role in politics as an extension of my role as a mother and now a grandmother. As parents, all of us know that we want to do everything we can for our children to help them grow, be healthy, to learn, to reach their fulfillment, but there are things we can't do for them. We have to look to the public sector in order for them, and moms can identify with this, I'm sure, to make sure that they have clean drinking water, that the air they breathe is clean, that there is food safety. We can't do that ourselves. We can't do that ourselves. That is a public role. The list goes on about the education of our children, the health security of our grandparents. Now, being a grandparent myself, but in terms of Medicare, Medicaid, all the things that are important to children, their health, their education, the economic security of their families, the pension security and health security of their grandparents, the safety of their neighborhood, some of these are private roles, some of these are public roles, some are public/private roles. But, as a mom, I call upon all mothers across the country to understand what this bill does to the health and well-being of America's children. And really, it's quite ironic, because any speech that you hear on the floor, in meetings and all the rest, they say we must reduce the deficit because it's immoral to pass along deficits to our children. Well, I think it's wrong to pass along private or public debt to our children. But what we are doing here is to pass along to our children a future less bright because of, again, I'll say it again, this dismantling of the public sector, which is an ideological goal long held by our friends. They would rather see seniors pay more for Medicare. They'd rather cut Medicaid and jeopardize Social Security while they give tax subsidies to Big Oil making record profits, tax breaks to corporations sending jobs overseas, and tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country at the expense of the education of our children and the health and well-being of our country. I hope that the House will reject this measure. I know that people of good intention to reduce the deficit can find a path to do that. It can't be too late because we have a deadline on August 2. But I want to pay my respects to President Obama, who has been respectful of every suggestion proposed by the Republicans, giving it the time and attention that they thought it deserved. He tried to accommodate all of those to have a balanced bipartisan approach. And what did the Republicans do? Walk away from the table. Well, the American people know about this. That's why 50-some percent of the American people support the balanced bipartisan approach that the President says we should strive to achieve, and only about 19 percent of the American people support the proposal that is put forth by the Republicans. This House should reject that. We should come together and use the work that has been done already to do something that will remove all doubt that we pay our bills, to remove all doubt that we are a strong economy that recognizes the role we play in the global economy, but also recognizes that all of this has an impact in the lives of everyday Americans as they sit around their kitchen table thinking about what they will do if the cost of credit goes up. And that means their credit card bills, their car payment, their house payment, student loans and the rest are more expensive to them. This is very costly in terms of confidence and in terms of making ends meet. Let's be responsible. Reject this bill and get back to work so that on Tuesday we will have met our obligations. That's the least that we can do for our children.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend him for his tremendous leadership as the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee and for bringing to that debate and that discussion at the table the values of the American people and the concerns they have as they sit around their kitchen table. They are concerned that this Saturday will mark the 200th day of the Republicans attaining the majority in the House of Representatives. And yet today another day goes by when we do not have a jobs bill on the floor. Indeed, we should have a jobs bill. This isn't a jobs bill. We should be working together to lower the deficit, to grow the economy, to create jobs; and we should be doing so in a balanced, bipartisan way. Instead, we have before us what is called the Republican plan to cut, cap, and end Medicare. This legislation is the Republican budget that was voted on earlier this year all over again. Wildly unpopular among the American people, the Republican budget, again, ended Medicare, made seniors pay more for less, while it gave take breaks to Big Oil and corporations sending jobs overseas. It made kids pay less for their education while it gave tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. As our Republican colleague, Congressman Jim Jordan, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, which is the source of this budget, said on Sunday, this legislation basically mirrors the budget proposal that the House passed this year. And indeed it does. It is summed up in one sentence: it ends Medicare, making seniors pay more, while giving take breaks to Big Oil and corporations sending jobs overseas. Furthermore, economists believe that the result of this legislation will be the result of the loss of 700,000 jobs. This legislation harms middle class families. But don't take my word for it. Nearly 250 national organizations oppose this legislation, saying it would almost certainly necessitate massive cuts to vital programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, and lead to even deeper cuts than the House-passed budget. Mr. Speaker, I heard the previous speaker say we have to think about future generations as we go forward in this debate. Indeed, I agree. For that reason, I call young people to my office over and over again, and most recently, last week, a large group of college students, some just newly graduated, and I said, Your name is used at the table of the debt reduction; your name is used at the table that we owe this to future generations. I'd like to know from you as a member of the next generation, as a leader of the next generation, what do you think about what's going on at the debate table, the discussion table in the White House? What do you think of that? What values do you want me to bring from your generation to that table? With great wisdom they talked about the fact that education was central to their success and to America's competitiveness now and in the future. They talked about jobs. They said, Please don't have the cuts in the legislation deter job growth and growth of the economy. They said, Please don't harm Medicare and Medicaid, because that's very important to our families. In fact, for many of our families, that enables them to afford our ability to go to college. We just wouldn't make it without that. Actually, one other thing they talked about was, We want to share in reducing the deficit. We believe that everyone has a responsibility to do so, but we want our voices to be heard. And we're concerned with voter suppression now around the country and that barriers will be thrown up that will hurt our participation in the electoral process. So when I went to the White House, I spoke about that. But yesterday I met with high school students, well over a hundred high school students. I asked them the same question. They had similar answers. They also said, Tell them if they care about the future generations, they should care about our education, they should care about the budget deficit, they should care about jobs. They should also care about the environment, because the condition of the environment is important to us. But going back to those college students, that day I went into the White House and told my colleagues--the President, the Vice President, and our Democratic and Republican colleagues--what those college students said about education, for example. And then I listened to the discussion and I thought, Who is going to tell the children? Who is going to tell the children that at this table the suggestion is made that young people should spend $36 billion more for interest on their student loans so that we can reduce the deficit, but not touch $37 billion--almost the same number--$37 billion in tax subsidies for Big Oil. Who's going to tell the children that that is what the values are that are being proposed by the Republicans at that table--$36 billion more charged to students, $37 billion as a gift to Big Oil. But don't touch that to reduce the deficit. It's stunning to me. So as we use the name of the next generation and what we owe them and what they expect as they come out of school or what they need in order to afford school, in some cases that increase in the cost of interest payments will make it prohibitive--not more expensive--prohibitive for young people to go to school. One young man in high school said to me yesterday, I just graduated from high school at the top of my class. I had great grades and scores and everything, but I can't afford to go to college. I can only go to the community college in my town because I can only afford to be close to home and go to a community college. So please, in whatever it is you do, don't hurt community colleges. Community colleges are wonderful, and they do a great job for our country and the education of our children and the training of our workers and the rest. I had the privilege of speaking at the graduation commencement ceremony at San Francisco Community College last month, so I value what they do; but this young man had no choice because the cost of other education to him would be prohibitive, and again, because of the economic situation, he had to stay close to home. So let's listen to these people whose names we use--the next generation, the young people. We cannot heap mountains of debt onto them. Indeed, we shouldn't. Indeed, we didn't. When President Clinton was President, he took the deficit that he'd inherited on a path of fiscal soundness. Four of the five of his last budgets were either in surplus or in balance. You've heard that over and over again. He took a $5.6 trillion trajectory into surplus, only to be reversed by President Bush with his tax cuts for the rich, with his giveaways to the pharmaceutical industry and by not paying for the wars. He took us on a trajectory of a swing of $11 trillion--the biggest fiscal swing in the history of our country. That's the path we're on. I didn't hear anybody on the Republican side say ``boo, boo'' when the President was taking us so deeply into debt; and every time, we stepped up to the plate and lifted the debt ceiling because that was the right thing to do. Much has been said, if we don't lift the debt ceiling, as to what that means to our economy. We hear sounds from the tables in boardrooms about what it will do to the stock market, the credit markets, what it will do to the fiscal soundness of our country, our reputation overseas--and that's very important. Yet it's not only important what is said around the boardroom table; it's important as to what this means around the kitchen table for America's working families. American families could soon see an increase in their cost of mortgages, car loans, credit cards, and student loans. Social Security and veterans' checks could be held up. Stock prices, which are important to our economy, could fall with a direct hit on families' 401(k)s, pensions and savings. It would be a job destroyer, heaping more economic insecurity on America's families and on the concerns they have as to the education of their children, the health of their families and the security of their retirements around that kitchen table. Rather than making progress on the debt limit to prevent these widespread consequences for America's middle class, this legislation takes us backward: throwing up further roadblocks to increasing the debt limit. Mr. Speaker, we still have time to come together in a bipartisan and balanced way for a ``grand bargain'' that would ensure our Nation meets its obligations while working toward a long-term plan to reduce the deficit, create jobs, grow the economy, and strengthen the middle class. Let us recognize that the best way to reduce the deficit is to get the American people back to work. Let us do as the President called upon us to do: to out-build, out-educate, out-innovate the rest of the world to win the future by creating jobs. Together, we can keep America number one. I see my distinguished friend from Indiana is here, and I heard his one-sentence summation earlier. I won't repeat it, but I'll give you my one-sentence summation on this: This legislation ends the Medicare guarantee, making seniors pay at least $6,000 more while giving tax breaks to Big Oil and corporations sending jobs overseas. I hope that some of our Republican colleagues will do what they did before and vote against this budget plan. A majority of Republicans voted against this budget plan when it came to the floor the day of the Ryan budget. I call upon all of us to do the right thing for the next generation and vote ``no.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this patent reform bill, misnamed the America Invents Act. It had been our hope that we would be voting on a patent bill that encourages entrepreneurship, protects intellectual property rights, and sends a message abroad that strengthens patent rights at home. The bill before us fails on all these scores. Instead, by favoring large international companies, we have before us a missed opportunity to encourage entrepreneurship. It is a missed opportunity to strengthen intellectual property rights here at home. For these and other reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Manager's amendment, yes on the Boren-Sensenbrenner-Waters-Schock amendment, and no on the final passage of this disappointing bill. Let's go back to the drawing board for a real bill to keep America number one.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Madam Chair, Madam Ambassador, Congresswoman, many titles, great leader. Thank you all very much for being at the Capitol today and thank you for your ongoing work on behalf of our country. I am honored to be here as the minority leader in the presence of a great minority leader, Bob Michel. He knows this job with a President of your party and without a President of your party. Again he is, as you know, an icon in this House, and anytime he visits it's a cause for celebration for us. And to be able to do so, to honor Senator John Warner, welcome to the House side, Senator Warner. The respect that we have had for you over the years is only heightened by your ongoing leadership now that you are a former Senator, but the fact is your imprint on this Congress has been a great one, not only substantively but officially in a bipartisan way. You're a great leader. It's an honor to welcome you and to join our Speaker in welcoming you to the House side. Good morning, Senator. Please give my love to Jeanne. And to Dennis Hertel and Connie Morella, thank you for your leadership. Listening to Congressman Slattery talk about the working groups and the rest, I am so impressed, because that you continue to do this work is very, very important. I just had the Ambassador from Japan in my office, and I could just substitute that name for almost any country, but Japan in particular right now at a time of duress for that country, the appeal was to heighten our interparliamentary relationships, whether with former Members, with staff, or with current Members as well. Jim, thank you for the work that you're all doing with those working groups to encourage them. Former Members are a fount of so much wisdom for us, Senator and Mr. Leader, Madam Chair, Dennis, you understand the institution, you have time to reflect, I hope--I hope you have time to reflect--on some of the issues while you served here and as you see our service here. We consider ourselves all colleagues to each other. Abraham Lincoln is our colleague. Anyone who ever served in this House, I believe, is our colleague. Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln, we're part of a very proud tradition in the people's House. I just want to tell you this anecdotally. All of the Speakers, former and present, have been invited to participate in the 200th anniversary, the bicentennial of the election of Henry Clay as Speaker of the House. This will take place in Lexington, Kentucky, pretty soon. So, of course, we're all reading up on Henry Clay to enhance our knowledge of what was going on at the time. It was pretty raucous at the time. He was elected the Speaker the first day he arrived, 34 years old, the youngest Speaker ever, but he was part a of an insurgent group of many, many freshmen who decided that they were going to take over the House, and his imprint here was a great one. In studying and in looking at his service over the years back and forth, Senator Warner, he started in the Senate and he decided that not much was getting done over there, so he decided to run for the House. And then eventually he went back to the Senate. It's very interesting to see, because as people, shall we say, comment on our combativeness or our enthusiasm for ideas as we compete in this great marketplace of ideas called the House of Representatives what the heritage and what the background is of that expression of difference of opinion. The gentlemen that we have here, Leader Michel and Senator Warner, are examples of the civility we hope will be the hallmark that guides again our enthusiasm for the ideas that we bring to the Congress. Thank you for your ongoing leadership. Thank you for being an intellectual resource to the Congress in a bipartisan way. I think I served with almost all of you, maybe not every single one but almost all of you, so I have a great appreciation for the contributions that you have made. Again, the imprint, the legacy that you have left. I know you're very proud. I want you to know that we are as well. You have come at a very interesting time. The issues of budget and budget priorities and the values debate that goes with that is something that is not new to all of you. The challenges that we face in the world, our national security is everything. We take that oath to protect and defend our national security. I know I don't have to say that to Bev Byron, her great leadership on the Armed Services Committee. But also at a time where you have real-time communication, it's so different. When Henry Clay was the Speaker of the House, a message could only travel as fast as a horse could gallop or a ship could sail. Imagine. And today in real time. In fact it's even before real time. Before you even get out of the room, it's been BlackBerry'd outside of the room, so the message is always ahead of you. Imagine the difference that that makes, in the participation of the public, in their reaction to events without any explanation or context in which they have taken place but the fact that they are taking place. Again, you've seen this all happen. Some of it happened when many of you were here. Every day a new technology enhances our communication. We see that as a plus. We see how it promoted democracy in the Middle East. We hope for the best coming out of all of that, hopefully that it will be democracy, but the change that sprang from it. So in terms of how we represent, I say to the Members, you're all independent. Your job description and your title are one and the same: Representative. Representative. Sometimes it requires leadership to give a national perspective to some of the decisions that you have to make that might be not clear at home at the time, and again especially with real-time communication, you have to be ahead of all of that. That's called leadership. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you for continuing your work together in a bipartisan way. Thank you again for being an intellectual resource. Thank you for the work that you do internationally because, of course, again, back to national security, our first responsibility, to keep the American people safe and have our children grow up in a world where they can all reach their potential and their fulfillment because the world is at peace. I bring greetings from the Democrats in the House, but I hope I could say that we all join together, Democrats and Republicans, in saying thank you to all of you.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, it is 6 o'clock across America, or at least in the eastern time zone. Families across America are getting ready to sit down for dinner at their kitchen tables in many homes in our country. Moms are saying to their children, ``Eat your vegetables. Eat your dinner.'' But in some homes in America, there isn't adequate food on the table, and there isn't adequate nutrition for our children. It's hard to imagine that one in five kids in America may go to sleep hungry tonight with pains in their stomachs because they just didn't have enough food to eat. In its wisdom, the United States of America established the WIC Program awhile back for women, infants and children to make sure our Nation was strong. It was to make sure we fed our children. Our country made a decision that feeding our children was a priority. It sounds so obvious. Families make decisions within their budgets that they are going to feed their children. They wouldn't think of saving money by not feeding their children. Yet, for some in low-income areas and for others now, as this is into the middle class, it is very hard to make ends meet. So you wonder, in thinking of these people who are sitting down to dinner, how the Congress of the United States in trying to reduce the deficit, which we are all committed to do--that's important to our children as well--would decide to balance that budget on the little, tiny backs of our children, many of whom don't have enough to eat. I want to commend Congresswoman DeLauro for her leadership as a member of the Ag Subcommittee of Appropriations and as the former chair of that subcommittee. She successfully passed an amendment in committee which had bipartisan support--it would have to have bipartisan support to pass--to restore $147 million to the WIC Program to feed the children. I congratulate her for that. It is part of the bill that was supposed to come to the floor. The Republican leadership has decided not to protect that bipartisanly passed amendment. What we are seeing is that the cutting of support for Women, Infants and Children is in the context of something bigger. At the same time as we are making these cuts, we are giving tax subsidies to Big Oil. The price at the pump is also an imposition on the budgets of these families, and that is something that we can do something about by ending harmful speculation. To do that, we have to fund the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is in this bill as well. The Republicans are saying they want to delay, delay, delay, and defeat the enforcement of laws which would end speculation, which would reduce the price at the pump, Goldman Sachs said, by at least 20 percent. At the same time, this same Republican majority has passed a bill, not once but twice, to abolish Medicare. Food, price at the pump, Medicare, these are assaults on the middle class that are hard to withstand. In fact, they are hard to understand. It's hard to understand why we'd say to seniors, ``You're going to pay more for Medicare, and for fewer benefits as we abolish Medicare, while we give subsidies to Big Oil.'' We are going to say to seniors in nursing homes, ``You're going to go home and live with your families, who can probably ill-afford for you to do so, so we can give tax breaks to corporations to send jobs overseas.'' We are going to say to children whom we are not feeding that we are cutting education funding as well as making college more expensive for nearly 10 million students in our country and, for some, making it unaffordable to go to college while we give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. So they are cutting support for Women, Infants and Children while handing a blank check to speculators. They are ending Medicare while they give subsidies to Big Oil. These choices do not reflect America's values and priorities. These are tough choices. They will not bring the growth we need to expand our economy and put people back to work as we create jobs. They will not make America strong. As moms across America are saying to children right now at 6 o'clock in the East, ``eat your vegetables; they will make you strong,'' we are acting on this floor to do just the opposite--to cut the funding for the initiative that will help feed the children of America. It is unthinkable that a family would say, ``We can't afford to feed the children.'' It is unthinkable that a Nation committed to the future would say, ``We can't afford to feed the children.'' These families need our help. It's a large amount of money, $147 million, but very small compared to the subsidies to Big Oil and a small price to pay for the health and well-being of our children and for the strength of our country as we go into the future. So I commend Congresswoman DeLauro for her tremendous leadership--for fighting for this, for not taking ``no'' for an answer in the committee. I would hope that we could prevail on the floor, but the Republican majority has left little option for that to happen. I also want to commend Congressman Farr, now the ranking member on the Ag Subcommittee. Probably nobody in the Congress knows more about this. There may be some who are his equal--I don't know--but probably no one knows more about this issue in his representing an agricultural region as he does and also being committed to the health and well-being and to the good nutrition of our children so that they can be strong, so that they can learn in school and so that they can be a part of our great country in the best possible way for them. So I thank you, Ranking Member Farr, for your leadership as well. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Father John Kevin Ring, who on June 12, 2011 will celebrate his Golden Jubilee of priestly service in San Francisco, California. I join my fellow parishioners in profound gratitude for Father Ring's service as Pastor of St. Vincent de Paul Church and St. Vincent de Paul School, both which have flourished with his guidance over the past 24 years. Father John Ring was born in San Francisco and grew up in St. Anne's Parish in the Sunset district. He entered the seminary at St. Joseph's College in Mountain View and continued his studies for the Priesthood at St. Patrick's Seminary in Menlo Park. Father Ring was ordained a priest on June 10, 1961 at St. Mary's Cathedral and began his first assignment at the Most Holy Redeemer Parish in San Francisco. He served at St. Patrick's in Larkspur, St. Matthew's in San Mateo, St. Brigid's in San Francisco and Mater Dolorosa Church in South San Francisco before being appointed by Archbishop Quinn in 1986 to serve as fifth Pastor of St Vincent de Paul Church in San Francisco. St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church was founded in 1901, also called the ``Church of Cow Hollow'' for its oldest neighborhood, ``Church of the Exposition'' for the Panama Pacific International Exposition that took place largely in the Marina District and the ``Church of the Earthquakes'' since it withstood both of San Francisco's big earthquakes. The 1989 earthquake was a momentous event in the history of the St. Vincent de Paul parish because much of the damage was sustained in the Marina District, including considerable structural damage to the church itself. On the Friday following the earthquake Archbishop John Quinn offered mass at the church. Father Ring presided over the church's renovation which was celebrated at the Feast of St. Vincent de Paul on September 27, 1991. Both the new altar and the new pipe organ were dedicated by Archbishop Quinn in 1993. As Pastor of St. Vincent de Paul Church, Father Ring stressed the need to involve the laity in decision and policy making. During his Pastorate there were many beginnings, including a mass for young adults, a group of Home Visitors to care for the sick and homebound in the parish, and beyond, and girls were allowed to be altar servers. Father Ring formed a Parish Finance Committee and worked to stabilize St. Vincent de Paul School that has become a highly regarded parochial school in San Francisco. The individuals and families in Father Ring's parish have been blessed with a Pastor who has strengthened their church and school, built community, and inspired their love for service and their love for God. On a personal note, my husband Paul's parents John and Corinne Pelosi became parishioners of St. Vincent de Paul in the 1930s and our family has had a relationship with this parish for over 70 years. Although Father Ring will be retiring he will long be an inspiration to our family.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule that is on the floor today because voting for this rule is a vote to abolish Medicare. Here we are, once again, after the public has spoken so clearly on this subject of wanting to have Medicare as a pillar of health and economic security for our seniors, the Republicans saying we're going to double down. Not only did we vote to abolish Medicare, increasing costs for seniors, lowering benefits while giving tax breaks to oil companies and corporations for shipping jobs overseas, not only have we done that once, but we're going to do it again today, on a day that we're going to swear in a new Member of Congress, a reminder that all of us takes an oath of office to protect and defend. And this bill, the bill that this rule comes up on, Homeland Security, undermines the ability to protect and defend the American people. So, this is a double whammy. It's a threat, again, to the health and economic security of our seniors and those who depend on Medicare, and it is a threat to the safety of the American people. I heard my colleague, Mr. Markey, talk about purgatory and rapture and the rest in his original and effective presentation, and it reminded me what we always say when we talk about a budget: that it should be a statement of our values. What is important to us should be reflected there. Our budget proposals--we had one under the leadership of Chris Van Hollen that was heard and voted on by the floor a number of weeks ago; a Republican budget that is on the floor today in the form of this rule--are windows to the soul of whom we are as public officials. And this rule today which deems passage of the Republican budget is a window to the soul of the Republican Party and this House of Representatives. Giving tax subsidies to Big Oil would benefit corporations that shift jobs overseas and would give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country while it says to seniors, No more Medicare for you. You're going to pay more, get less, and weaken the middle class at the same time, weakening the middle class because of abolishing Medicare and weakening the middle class because of what it does to education for our young children and making college more expensive for nearly 10 million young people in our country. Is that an investment in the future? I don't think so. But it's really important when we talk about our soul and our values and what our priorities are that we note that a vote for this bill is a really serious assault on the middle class. People are concerned about the dignity and retirement of our seniors. They are concerned about the education of our children. They want to reduce the deficit. We must create jobs. Growth in our economy will help reduce the deficit. This bill does none of the above. So, again, it's about what we believe in. Mr. Speaker, I have to give you credit for this, that the Republicans are true to what they believe in. They do not believe in Medicare, and they are voting today to honor their beliefs to abolish Medicare. That has been a consistent message over time. It is reinforced here today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our Law Revision Counsel, Peter G. LeFevre, for his contributions to our Nation's laws, for his commitment to the House of Representatives, and for his service to the American people. Peter's actions and achievements rarely receive the recognition he and his colleagues deserve; too few know the significance of his accomplishments behind the scenes. But legislators, litigators, lawyers, and anyone interested in the laws of our land rely on his work each and every day. Since joining the office of the Law Revision Counsel 30 years ago, Peter has been a key member of the dedicated team of non-partisan professionals and experts who revise, prepare, and publish the U.S. Code. He has served under seven successive Speakers of the House of both parties, maintaining the Code, updating it, and drafting legislation to improve the codification of federal law. Over the past seven years, Peter has led the office, appointed as the Law Revision Counsel by Speaker Dennis Hastert. During his tenure, he oversaw all aspects of the preparation and publication of the Code, ensuring its accuracy and reliability. He has worked on thousands of public laws, including appropriations, defense authorizations, tax and health reforms, and omnibus reconciliations, and guided the Office of the Law Revision Counsel through the many challenges brought on by changes in personnel and technological innovations. Those of us who are fortunate enough to have known and worked with Peter are grateful for his leadership. Peter G. LeFevre has left his mark on our laws, on the Congress, on our country's history. For today's lawmakers, his contributions have been invaluable; for generations yet to come, his work will provide an unbroken link to the debates and legislation of the last 30 years. Peter's many years of dedication to the federal government and to the House of Representatives should be a source of pride to him and his family. We thank and commend Peter for his service, and wish him well in his retirement.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Mr. Levin, for your compliment to my great State of California. Mr. Speaker, when I first heard this legislation was coming to the floor, I anticipated with some positive thoughts of, yes, this is the right thing to do. America must pay its bills. We know how to do that. We want to go forward, assuring the American people that, when we decide not to default on our debt, we are showing our strength, even though it may be difficult for people to support that. Then I heard that it was going to come up like this. On Sunday, they told us it would be up on Tuesday and that the bill is predicated on a false premise. It says the Congress finds that the President's budget proposal, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012, necessitates an increase in the statutory debt of $2.4 trillion. Well, that is just absolutely not the case. First of all, that bill never passed the House and it never passed the United States Senate. What did pass the House, though, was the Republican budget plan, which abolishes Medicare, gives tax increases to Big Oil, gives tax breaks to corporations sending jobs overseas, weakens the middle class, and does not create jobs. And, in fact, increases the deficit by $1.9 trillion. It increases the deficit by $1.9 trillion. So what are we doing here today? What are we doing? The Republicans have introduced a bill which they have now resoundingly said that they will oppose. So where is the good-faith effort here? We are, I believe, in a good-faith effort, in a bipartisan way, House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, working with Vice President Biden to find ways to make sure we don't find ourselves in this situation again. As a mother and as a grandmother, I have absolutely no intention of passing any bills, personal or official, on to my children or grandchildren. And let me say, the Democrats know how to clean up the debt. We have had to do it before. The Reagan-Bush debt that President Clinton inherited was a massive debt, and because we took the vote for the economic plan in 1993, we were on a path to fiscal soundness. The last four budgets of the Clinton administration were in balance or in surplus. I believe the Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer, addressed these numbers earlier, and I associate myself with his remarks and his passion on this subject. Coming into the Bush years, President Clinton put us on a path of $5.6 trillion, a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. One of the biggest turnarounds in the fiscal situation in our country happened under President Bush. So all of this talk about deficits and their immorality and the rest, I agree. But where was everybody when President Bush was giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country, which did not create jobs, giving away the store to the pharmaceutical industry in the Medicare part D bill, at a tremendous cost to the deficit, and not paying for the wars? Again, we place our men and women in uniform in harm's way. They make us the home of the brave and the land of the free. We want them to have what they need. They want us to pay for it. We owe them an obligation to build a future worthy of their sacrifice, and that future does not contain unlimited growing debt, unlimited growing debt. Never before in the history of our country have we lowered taxes for the rich while we were at war. This is an all-time first. So here we are. We inherit this debt of the Bush administration. That's why we are in the situation we are in. So as our colleagues try to characterize this as we're raising the debt limit so there can be more spending, no, we're not. We're avoiding default of the massive debt accrued during the Bush administration. That's why we are here. So to predicate this legislation, which I really, coming out of last week, thought maybe it was something I would support, unencumbered legislation so that we would pay our bills and not be a deadbeat nation, instead they predicate it again on a false premise. The facts are these: The Republican budget did pass this House; the Republican budget. They just want to change the subject from Medicare. That's all. They just want to change the subject from Medicare, so let's just bring this up at the drop of a hat in the first hours back from Memorial Day. They want to change the subject from Medicare. But the facts are these: In their Republican budget, which is the predicate for this legislation, they abolish Medicare. Not only that, they make prescription drugs more expensive for seniors. They eliminate prevention services for seniors, services which make them healthier and lower costs to us. They do all of this while also, as far as the children are concerned, cutting education for our children, the reading teachers for our children, making college more expensive for nearly 10 million young adults--all of this a travesty in terms of our hopes and aspirations of middle-income families in our country. Then to add insult to that injury, they come in here with a bill that they have to bring up immediately so that they can oppose it. Well, even the Chamber of Commerce has said, We're all in on the joke, but it just isn't that funny if you're a struggling family in America, hoping to keep your job, your home, to be able to send your children to college, save for the future, have some confidence about your economic security. If you're a senior or others who depend on Medicare, to have it abolished hurts your economic as well as your health security. So this is about priorities. A budget should be a statement of our national values, what is important to us as a country: the education of our children, the respect of the dignified retirement for our seniors, job creation, in that we have a moral obligation to create jobs so we have jobs for our workers and so they can have better futures, as well as to make our country more competitive, reducing the deficit. We've done it once, the Democrats did. We can do it again, hopefully in a bipartisan way under the auspices that have been created for this purpose. We are right in the middle of it. We come in and say, Okay, let's introduce a bill based on a false premise, and then let's all oppose it. Well, I'm glad you're opposing it, because you're opposing the false premise that you have in this bill. Let's get serious. Let's get serious about this. The American people are crying out for help. Do you know that the tax cuts on which this deficit has grown, the tax cuts to the wealthy, did not create jobs? They increased the deficit. They did not create jobs. More jobs were created in the second year of the Obama administration in the private sector than in the 8 years of the Bush administration. So this talk that tax cuts to the high end were going to create jobs just didn't happen. We don't want to talk about the past. We want to know what we're going to do in the future, but it's important to learn from the past so we don't do it again, so we're not in this situation again. As I said, as to the thought of an unencumbered bill that would come to the floor, if that would be the case, I looked favorably upon that until I saw what was in here, which isn't right. I'm glad that, hopefully, it will have a big, strong vote against it. I want to commend my colleague, Congressman Welch. In his letter, he is not demanding anything. He is saying let's get together and talk about how we can pass a bill that is a clean debt limit bill. That's what he is talking about. Why don't we follow his lead on that and get together and talk about how we can do this in a way that is clean and/ or at the same time has a bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit so that we can do just that as we increase jobs and strengthen the middle class. Thank you, Mr. Welch, for your leadership in that regard. I know that it has been mischaracterized here, but I salute you for your leadership on that score. So, my colleagues, you'll vote the way you'll vote, but the fact is what is happening on this floor is not serious. It's not serious, but the subject it addresses is serious. It is time for this Congress of the United States to get serious about debt reduction, job creation, and to stop this assault on Medicare, which is the basis for this legislation today. General Leave

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership and working with Congressman Walter Jones on this bipartisan amendment, which has been brought to the floor. They have worked again in a bipartisan way, in a patriotic way, to ensure that U.S. troops are brought home from Afghanistan safely and expeditiously. Listening to the debate, it's interesting because I don't know that we are that far apart because we all want to ensure the national security of our country. We all respect our men and women in uniform and the job that they are doing to keep us the land of the free and the home of the brave. We respect them when they come home as our veterans, but we have to know that involvement of nearly 10 years has serious consequences for our country. I told the President of Afghanistan on my recent visit this spring that each time I go there I say the American people are growing tired of war; we are weary of war. We went into Afghanistan in the fall of 2001. For about 7 years, there was no plan. There was no plan on how we would execute what we went to do and how we would leave. When President Obama became President, many of us who were eager to bring our troops home gave him a chance to put forth a plan, which he did, which calls for the drawdown of troops in July 2011, and drawing down more completely by 2014. President Obama himself had said earlier this month, I have already made a commitment that starting in July of this year we are drawing down troops and we are transitioning. We are training Afghan forces so they can start securing their own country. The President went on to say we don't need to have a perpetual footprint of the size we have now. So, therefore, I think it's really important for us to know what this amendment does that I think reflects the mood of the American people. It requires within 60 days of enactment, a plan and time frame for the accelerated transition of military and security operations to the Government of Afghanistan; within 60 days of enactment, a plan and time frame for negotiations leading to a political solution and reconciliation in Afghanistan, and within 90 days of enactment, a National Intelligence Estimate on leadership, location and capabilities of al Qaeda and affiliated networks and cells. Who can be against that? Who can be against that? We are talking about 60 days a plan for transition, and 60 days a plan for negotiations. I appreciate the efforts of this amendment, as it underscores the importance of having a plan and a time frame for a transition of responsibility, a transition of responsibility for security and stability to the Afghans so that we can bring our troops home. The National Intelligence Estimate on al Qaeda that is called for in the plan will also help ensure our policymakers that they have updated information on the threat posed by al Qaeda and its affiliates who remain a threat even following the death of Osama bin Laden. Careful intelligence analysis is essential to keeping the American people safe. So as I salute our men and women in uniform, I also want to salute our men and women in the intelligence community who are an important part of keeping the American people safe. I commend them and CIA Director Panetta for his leadership in the Osama bin Laden operation. But back to the specific point of this amendment. I have gone to Afghanistan year after year after year, never thinking that we would be engaged in the longest war in America's history. The first 7 years, not even a plan; but now the President has put into motion how we make judgments about how we stay and how we leave. If you visit the women in Afghanistan, as many women in the Congress have done and some of our male colleagues as well, they will tell you whether you are talking to educated women in Kabul, but really more relevant to me, poor, poor women in the provinces, they are all saying the same thing. I visited a group of women in the province of Zabul, just as I have visited a number of provinces and spoken to the women across Afghanistan. The women in Zabul said we really want to educate our daughters, we want to have access to health care clinics and the rest, but we can't have that until we have security, and we can't have security until we end corruption. There are many things going on in Afghanistan that must change. There will be a better chance for change if we make an investment in the civilian side of this transition, whether it's diplomacy, whether it's part of the construction. They tell me not to say reconstruction because not much was there before. Construction there includes building schools. We visited little schools and schools in different parts of Afghanistan. It's very encouraging. Our troops know that we have to leave, that we have to transition out. But as I told President Karzai also, we didn't come here, and we are not staying here 10 years so that when we leave women return to the subjugated position they were in under the Taliban. So the answer to that is women must be at the table when you have the negotiations for reconciliation of the leadership of the Taliban, and reintegration of rank-and-file members of the Taliban. As we move toward more stability in Afghanistan, women must play a role. Women in America, women throughout the world care about how this all turns out there. So here we are, almost 10 years later in a situation where we just want to have some management of this issue. Let's have a plan for how negotiations will take place. Let's have a plan after we see the National Intelligence Estimate based on what the al Qaeda threat is. This is a very wise amendment. I thank Mr. McGovern and Mr. Jones for how they put it together because it is very reasonable. It has a goal in sight. It has a reasonable approach as to how we get there. But make no mistake: in overwhelming numbers, the American people think we have done our job there in terms of helping the Afghan people. Our purpose there was to protect the American people. We can do both by focusing more on the civilian side of governance issues and how Afghanistan is governed on anti-corruption issues. And our initiatives that I have seen there on this recent trip are an improvement over the past, by training the national security forces of Afghanistan, be it police or the military, so they can maintain their own security, and by diplomatically enlisting other countries in the region because they all have a vested interest in the stability of Afghanistan. But an open-ended, unending war there, which is costly but is nothing compared to the cost of the loss of our young men and women, that's our first and foremost concern. But there is also the cost in dollars, the cost in opportunity and in military strength. This involvement and engagement in Afghanistan is not strengthening our military. So Americans are paying a big price. We want to make sure we are getting a return on that investment, and time is a very important factor. It's time for our troops to come home. And I thank Mr. McGovern and Mr. Jones for their leadership.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 90th birthday of a great songwriter, lyricist, advocate, and leading voice of America's artistic community: Hal David. The child of immigrants blessed with an extraordinary talent, Hal David has lived--and continues to live--the American dream. He used his musical gifts in service of our country as part of the U.S. Army Entertainment Section on the Pacific front during World War II. He returned home to write songs for the nation's top performers; produce Grammy-winning Broadway masterpieces and Oscar-winning lyrics; and partner with great composers to create soundtracks for stage and screen, and popular hits that remain classics to this day. For his achievements, his success, his creativity, and his contributions to our history and society, Hal David was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame and the Nashville Songwriters Hall of Fame. On behalf of his colleagues--whether leaders in the field, famous faces, or those struggling to earn their place in the pantheon of great artists--Hal David has advocated for the rights of all performers and writers in the halls of Congress and in our nation's public discourse. As President of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, he focused on key legislative issues facing music creators, led the charge against source licensing efforts, and oversaw the organization's increased presence in the field of country music. As Chairman and CEO of the Songwriters Hall of Fame, he invested in new technologies and an expanded digital presence for the institution, and strengthened the Grammy Museum in Los Angeles. Hal David has spent his career enriching our music, our culture, our society, and our nation. His story is a tribute to his desire to do what he loved, his willingness to work hard, his ability to succeed and thrive across generations, and his creativity. I join my colleagues in the House of Representatives, and fans of music across the country, in wishing Hal David a happy and healthy 90th birthday.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. As the Speaker takes the chair, I join him in commending to the House the spiritual leadership of Father Patrick Conroy. Speaker Boehner, I wish to associate myself with your remarks so beautifully explaining how proud we are that Father Patrick Conroy has agreed to this additional responsibility. I would only like to add that in his ministering to the needs at Georgetown as a chaplain there, he was engaged in many interfaith ministerings. So that serves him well to come here with the diversity of beliefs that we have within even the Protestant part of our Congress but also throughout the Congress. Father Pat Conroy comes with a healthy respect for what we do, as Speaker Boehner said. He has been a longtime Jesuit and again served very beautifully in that capacity. Before that he was an attorney. So the making of laws is of interest to him. That is not to say that he doesn't understand his first responsibility, and that is to minister to the spiritual and personal needs of our colleagues. Yes, Speaker Boehner was correct in saying that one of the last gifts that Father Coughlin left us was a recommendation that Father Patrick Conroy would be considered to follow in his footsteps, and huge footsteps they are. For more than 10 years, Father Dan was our spiritual leader, and we were blessed with that. Today, we are blessed again with the Speaker's recommendation to the body of Father Patrick Conroy as the Chaplain of the House of Representatives. It is a beautiful honor, steeped in history, deeply personal, free of politics; and we wish him every success in that job. Father, we pray for you. Please pray for us. Welcome, Father Patrick Conroy.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the first responsibility of all Members of Congress is to keep our country safe. Critical to fulfilling that obligation is providing members of the intelligence community with every resource they need to do their jobs. Today, with this Democratic amendment, we address this challenge head-on. I'd like to acknowledge the leadership of those who introduced this amendment: Congressman Nadler, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, and Congressman Ellison. I thank them for bringing to the floor legislation that: ensures that our top priority in funding our intelligence services is the campaign to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda and affiliated organizations; honors the extraordinary courage, dedication, and sacrifice of the intelligence officers, analysts, and Navy SEALs who located, tracked, and killed Osama bin Laden; and commends the leadership of President Obama in carrying out this mission and recognizes the commitment of Presidents Clinton and Bush for advancing this fight. As it says, this action ``brought a measure of justice to the families of the victims of 9/11.'' Strengthening our intelligence capabilities and establishing clear priorities are not partisan issues; they are critical to our national defense. That is why I urge Republicans to join Democrats to pass this motion and keep the pressure on those who attacked our shores nearly 10 years ago.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this very important issue, important in having an immediate impact on America's families. They are feeling the pain at the pump. Our families, our workers, our small businesses, every day it gets worse for them, the price at the pump. So what can we do about it? Well, we can do a number of things, and we will, that we have been advocating for. Of course we must increase domestic production, and there is a way to do that. But that is not all that we have to do. The American people understand that their tax dollars are going to subsidies for Big Oil. If we ended those subsidies, we could save over $30 billion for the American people. To put it into context, my colleagues, for the first quarter of this year, the Big Five oil companies made profits of over $30 billion. Why are we, the taxpayers, subsidizing their drilling of oil when they are making huge profits, doing it in the free market? President Obama has written to leaders in Congress asking to bring a bill to the floor to end these subsidies. I have written to Speaker Boehner asking him to do so. He has said the oil companies should pay their fair share. Mr. Ryan, the chair of the Budget Committee, has acknowledged that in his own district. And yet, in the budget that is proposed by the Republicans, Big Oil still gets a big subsidy from the taxpayer. It would mean a great deal to us, in a situation where we are saying to seniors, We are going to cut Medicare; you are going to have to pay $6,000 a year more, at a minimum, for fewer benefits because we want to cut Medicare at the same time we are giving tax cuts, big tax breaks to Big Oil. So here we are today. Just last week, ExxonMobil reported $10.7 billion in profits during the first quarter of 2011. Over $10 billion in profits, a 69 percent jump from last year. In fact, this quarter marked some of the largest oil profits since 2008. Democrats are introducing comprehensive legislation. Mr. Tim Bishop is going to be leading us on the previous question, which we urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on so that we can bring up Mr. Bishop's legislation. Much of what that does is to eliminate tax breaks for the five largest oil companies, saving over $31 billion over 10 years. Think of it. We are trying to just save $31 billion over 10 years, when the oil companies made $31 billion in profits in the first quarter of this year. That is so unfair to the taxpayer. Legislation to ensure that oil companies are paying the royalties that are due the American taxpayer. Hold Big Oil and the industry accountable for price gouging at the pump. Use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to increase the oil supply and combat price hikes. In addition to that, we must end the harmful speculation which Wall Street tells us accounts for a large percentage of the increase in the price at the pump. We also will have measures that increase American energy production. It is very important. We don't disagree that we have to have production, but we do agree that we have to do other things that have a more immediate effect on the price at the pump. And we can do that. And we must invest in our clean energy future, which will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is a national security issue, which will enable us to create new green jobs in our country, a jobs issue which is a moral obligation we have to the American people to create jobs. But what the Republicans are proposing today has blinders on it. It does not recognize that what it is doing does nothing to reduce the price at the pump in the short term; that there are many other avenues that we can proceed down in addition to increasing domestic production; and that the American people need something fresher and newer on this than being sabotaged every few years about the price at the pump while we, the taxpayers, are giving subsidies to Big Oil to drill while they are making profits in the first quarter of 1 year that are almost more than what we would save for the taxpayer. They don't need a subsidy to drill. They don't need an incentive. They have the profit motive, and it has served them well. We in this Congress have to be thinking about the future. How do we prevent this from happening again, but also how do we have the most immediate effect on the price at the pump? Congressman Tim Bishop gives us that opportunity today, recognizing that we want to have the full diversity of energy possibilities available to us so that the American taxpayer and the American consumer are well-served. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, to allow Mr. Tim Bishop to bring up an initiative that he will talk about that addresses concerns of the American people that they know about, that they want to end subsidies on Big Oil, especially when we are talking about it in the context of we must cut investments in Medicare, seniors must pay more, but don't ask us to cut subsidies to Big Oil. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his ongoing leadership on issues that relate to privacy and the health of America's women. Madam Speaker, today is approximately the 120th day of the Republican majority in the Congress of the United States; and in all those 120 days, we have yet to see a jobs bill brought to the floor. We haven't even seen a jobs proposal or a jobs agenda. Instead, once again, we see a diversion. We see legislation which is extreme and divisive and harmful to women's health. I rise today to urge my Republican colleagues in the House to let us come together to work in a bipartisan way to address the number one priority of the American people, the creation of jobs; and I rise today as the Republicans bring to the floor this legislation instead of bringing to the floor a bill to end the subsidies for Big Oil. They gave the impression during the break that they would do that. I wrote to the Speaker; the President of the United States has written to the bipartisan leadership in Congress asking for an end to the subsidies to Big Oil. Instead of doing that, we are, again, undermining women's health. Let us begin this part of the debate with a clear understanding of the facts. Federal funding for abortion is already prohibited under the law due to the Hyde amendment except in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. Federal funding for abortion is already prohibited. This bill is even a radical departure from the Hyde amendment. It represents an unprecedented and, again, radical assault on women's access to the full range of reproductive health care services. For the first time, this bill places restrictions on how women with private insurance can spend their private dollars in purchasing health insurance. This bill will deny tax credits for women who buy the type of health insurance that they currently have, health insurance that covers a full range of reproductive care. As a result, now, this is about businesses. If you're a woman and you have a job and your employer gives you health insurance, that employer will no longer be able to take a tax deduction from your health insurance--quite different from what happens with their male employees. And in that event, when that happens, health insurance companies will then roll back that coverage because there won't be enough people participating in the pool to justify that insurance. So there are millions of women who will no longer have access to insurance policies from their employer that cover all reproductive services. The practical result of this legislation for many is there will be a tax increase, a tax increase on small businesses and a tax increase on women based on how they choose to spend their private dollars simply for keeping the coverage they have right now. Even more of a problem, this legislation allows hospitals to deny life-saving care to women in moments of direst emergency. The bill would permit medical professionals to turn their back on women dying from treatable conditions. It is appalling. As the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wrote in opposition to this effort: ``We oppose legislative proposals to limit women's access to any needed medical care. These proposals can jeopardize the health and safety of our patients and put government between a physician and a patient.'' Madam Speaker, let us not work to limit the care; let us expand it. Let us not raise taxes on small business and women; let us strengthen our middle class. Let us never attack the health of women; let us, instead, create jobs. That's what the American people expect us to do, and that is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this divisive and radical legislation.