Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Golden Gate Bridge--a great feat of technological and engineering mastery, a San Francisco landmark, and a national treasure. Today, it is my distinct honor and high privilege to mark its 75th birthday on the floor of the House of Representatives. Proving that in times of hardship, America has always invested in big things, the Golden Gate Bridge was built in the midst of the Great Depression. San Franciscans were out of work and saw no end to their woes. Yet voters nonetheless approved the construction bonds to build the bridge. As collateral, San Franciscans were willing to risk their homes, their farms and their businesses--their very livelihoods, in the hope that the toll dollars would help pay back the bonds. The Golden Gate Bridge was a symbol of hope and a vision for the future. Joseph Strauss envisioned the Bridge, which takes its name from the Golden Gateway that links the Pacific Ocean to the San Francisco Bay. It was Irving Morrow who designed the Art Deco styling and its world- famous international orange color that made the Bridge distinct and unique. The many engineers who constructed the Bridge all shared the American spirit that makes our country great. When it opened on May 27, 1937 Strauss shared his poem, ``The mighty the task is done'' which encapsulated all that had been accomplished. Twenty-five years ago, I had the distinct pleasure of participating in the 50th anniversary celebrations where hundreds of thousands of people crowded onto the Bridge to celebrate. The enormity of the crowd was so unexpected that the Bridge flattened under its weight. Today, the Golden Gate Bridge remains the most graceful and spectacular bridge in the world, beloved by our city and visited annually by millions of people from around the globe. It is a beautiful welcome to the many who flock to America's shores. Whether as a child first viewing the Golden Gate Bridge being mesmerized by its size, or as a worker whose lifework has kept the bridge strong, or as a traveler who relies on the bridge daily, it is a lasting symbol of San Francisco, of human tenacity and ingenuity, and is resplendent in the Western sun. With great pride I join all San Franciscans in paying tribute to the Golden Gate Bridge: our constant joy, our faithful companion, and our City's pride.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership year in and year out to clarify what our mission is and to make sure that we honor our troops--and ``honor them'' means not having them stay in harm's way any longer than is necessary for our national security. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, and I do so with some level of sadness; because when we're talking about the defense of our country and the oath we take to protect and defend the Constitution, I would have hoped, under this bill, we could have had, on the floor, the appropriate discussion of what is happening in Afghanistan. I rise today, just having returned with a bipartisan, all-women congressional delegation to Afghanistan. It's our traditional Mother's Day visit to our troops who are there in combat. We've recently been going to Afghanistan, and Iraq before that. The purpose of the trip this time was to have a conversation with the President of Afghanistan, President Karzai, as the first congressional delegation into Afghanistan following the signing of the Strategic Partnership Agreement between President Obama and President Karzai. But our main purpose of the trip was to visit our troops and to thank them for their service and their sacrifice to keep America's families safe on Mother's Day and every day in the year. The further purpose was to thank, in particular, our women who are in service there--other mothers in combat and, believe it or not, our grandmothers who are in the war zone. We met a Mom who has a baby that is just 16 weeks old. I had the honor of pinning a ribbon on a newly appointed woman captain who has six children, age 4 to 14, in the 10th month of her 1-year deployment in Afghanistan. Our women in the military serve our country very well. They strengthen our national security. We are grateful to them and their families, and we are grateful to all of our men and women in uniform. They are the 1 percent that we should care the most about and focus on. You hear a great deal about the 99 percent and the 1 percent. Well, this 1 percent is less than 1 percent of our men and women in uniform, a little higher than that, when they come home. What we say in the military is on the battlefield, we leave no soldier behind. And when they come home, leave no veteran behind. We will be meeting with our veteran service organizations today as this bill is being debated. So I wish that the rule would have allowed for the consideration of the McGovern amendment. I was surprised, frankly; and I'm rarely surprised around here. But I was surprised that that discussion could not take place on this floor in the form of approving that amendment because it is in furtherance of what is happening in the strategic partnership. I can tell you this on the basis of our trip, and we have to be careful when we return as congressional delegations from a trip that we don't read too much into our own observations, but what we did hear that was different from before, going every year, is that our troops' leadership is fabulous. General Allen is so great, as are the other generals and commanders who serve with him. They are preparing for the timetable spelled out in the President's strategic partnership agreement signed by the two Presidents. On the civilian front and what we are doing with USAID and our Americans who are serving there, as well as the coalition forces and friends who are helping in Afghanistan, are working along the path of this strategic partnership, and then the civilian part to go beyond that. So, really, I come home more encouraged than ever that it is possible for us to accomplish our mission, which is the protection of the American people, to do so in a way as it comes to an end. And it is never over, our protection of the American people is an endless commitment, but at least the commitment of that many troops on the ground in that country is one that we can say that soon we will bring our troops home safely. And that hopefully will be soon. So the timetable that Mr. McGovern has in his amendment is in sync with what that partnership is. There is other language in the bill which I think, frankly, confuses the issue; and that is why the clarity of debate would have been helpful. I am glad that the amendment by Mr. Smith, the ranking member, which is a bipartisan amendment, will be able to come to the floor. It addresses the detention issue, and we will have a fuller discussion of that when that amendment comes to the floor. But to recall, President Obama, when he signed last year's bill, did a signing statement that said that he would not enforce that part of the bill. Hopefully, today, we can remove that part of the bill because it flies in the face of our commitment to protect the American people and to have the proper balance between security and liberty and freedom. And that is our responsibility. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, to vote ``no'' on moving the previous question unless we can take up the McGovern amendment. And, again, I salute the President for the strategic partnership agreement. But most of all, I support our men and women in uniform and their families for their service, their sacrifice, and their patriotism for our country.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership on this important issue, not only as this legislation comes to the floor, but for the past couple of decades on the subject. I commend the maker of our motion to accept the Senate bill, Congresswoman Gwen Moore, for her sincere leadership on this issue as well. Madam Speaker, 18 years ago, Members of Congress came together--some of us gathered in this Chamber right now--came together to make history with the original passage of the Violence Against Women Act. We helped ensure that no victim of domestic violence has to suffer in silence. I want to especially salute our Vice President, Joe Biden, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate at the time, who worked with our chairman and many Members on both sides of the aisle to pass that legislation, again, making history. The original Violence Against Women Act took domestic violence out of the shadows and shone bright sunshine on it. In the years since, domestic violence has decreased by more than 50 percent--more than 50 percent. What a remarkable outcome. Twice in the intervening years we have come together in a bipartisan way to reauthorize and strengthen the law. This year our colleagues in the Senate acted similarly, passing a strong bill with a strong bipartisan vote of 68 1, including the support of every single woman in the Senate, Democratic and Republican alike. In doing so, they not only built on the history of the past, but they made progress for the safety of American women. In sharp contrast, sadly, while it was a strong bipartisan bill in the Senate, and our substitute that we requested from the Rules Committee was to be able to put forth the Senate bill, so that would be the Senate Democrats and Republicans and House Democrats all in agreement, unfortunately in sharp contrast, House Republicans have brought to the floor today a bill that is controversial in that it will weaken the protections we have given to those who suffer domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. This legislation on the floor fails vulnerable people--members of the LGBT community, Native American women, and immigrant victims. All people deserve to be protected from domestic violence. There should be no exceptions to this law. We can't say women of America, we're passing a bill to protect you--not so fast in your applause if you happen to be a member of the LGBT community, an immigrant or otherwise, or a Native American woman. Because the Republican bill is a step backward from the current law of the land, more than 300 organizations have spoken out in opposition, from the American Bar Association to the YWCA. Local law enforcement officials have said that this Republican House bill ``will impede criminal investigations, undermine prosecutions, and interfere with victim safety.'' I repeat the quotation. The local law enforcement officials have said this bill ``will impede criminal investigations, undermine prosecutions and interfere with victim safety.'' Religious organizations such as the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service and the National Association of Evangelicals have also expressed strong opposition to certain provisions of this legislation. The many advocates and experts who work day in and day out on this issue, on the issue of domestic violence, have also opposed the House Republican version of the Violence Against Women Act. Republicans have chosen not to listen to the professionals in the field and are failing to give the many organizations serving battered women the tools that they need. The Obama administration has said in their Statement of Administration Policy that the legislation ``rolls back existing law and removes long-standing protections for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault--crimes that predominantly affect women.'' That is why the President's senior advisers have said that they would recommend that the President veto this bill. Today, this House of Representatives has heard powerful statements from women Members of Congress about the need to pass a strong Violence Against Women bill. I hope that the safety of women will be high on the list of our colleagues as they determine their vote. For nearly 20 years, the Violence Against Women Act has strengthened communities and provided critical life-saving support to victims of violence. Because of this law, more victims get the help they need and domestic violence rates have decreased. Not only has VAWA saved lives; it has saved money. All Americans are entitled to feel safe, including in their own homes--every one of us. Yet too many women continue to live in fear. That is why we must strengthen, never weaken, the Violence Against Women Act. And I want to commend the members of the Judiciary Committee, my colleagues on the House side, the Democratic side, who have brought such tremendous intellectual resource to this legislation, listening to those who minister to the needs of women who have been victims of domestic violence and to those who are trying to protect it. I know that everyone in this body, Democratic and Republican alike, have the same goal, which is the safety of women. We not only want us to have the same goal, we want us to have the same goal for all women in America. And that's why we must strengthen, never weaken, the Violence Against Women Act. Because this bill on the floor rolls back current law and fails to protect all victims of violence, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Office of the Democratic Leader May 16, 2012. UPDATED: More Than 300 Organizations Oppose House GOP VAWA Bill Today, the House will consider H.R. 4970, the House GOP Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization bill. The bill is being considered under a closed rule. More than 300 organizations oppose the House GOP bill, including such groups as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Network to End Domestic Violence, National Coalition of Anti- Violence Programs, Break the Cycle, Legal Momentum, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, YWCA USA, AAUW, Business and Professional Women's Foundation, National Women's Law Center, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, American Bar Association, NAACP, National Council of La Raza, Human Rights Campaign, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and National Congress of American Indians. The National Association of Evangelicals and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service are opposed to the immigrant provisions in the bill. The Administration has also issued a veto threat on the bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to call to the attention of all of our colleagues and those who follow the work of Congress the extraordinary contribution that Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen has made to this debate. He has led our Democratic members on the Budget Committee in a way that reflects the values of our country: how we can meet the needs of our children, their health, their education, and the economic security of their families. When people ask me what are the three most important issues facing the Congress, I always say the same thing: our children, our children, our children. And the issues that are addressed in the budget address the needs of our children directly and the families in which they live. I watched with great pride the debate and the strong distinction that has been made between a values-based budget, put forth by the Democrats, that supports a thriving middle class, and the Ryan Republican Tea Party budget that upholds millionaires over the middle class. We are here today because the Republicans in the House have decided over and over again to walk away from a bipartisan, bicameral agreement that we reached to avert economic crisis and to reduce our deficit and to honor the full faith and credit of the United States of America. They are walking away and punishing the middle class, because they refuse to close even one special interest tax loophole to reduce our deficit. They are putting Big Oil and millionaires ahead of America's middle-income families. In recent weeks, House Republicans have voted twice--not once, but twice; here we go again, in the words of a great Republican President-- have voted twice to pass a budget that gives massive tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans while ending the Medicare guarantee and increasing cost for seniors in the meantime. That is an absolute fact. Today Republicans are voting to begin implementing their out-of-touch budget, and middle class people, seniors, women, and children will pay the price. Consider these few things. I know that members of the committee have made the case, but I just want to focus on a few things that affect people very directly in their lives. This Republican-Ryan-Tea Party budget will assault women's health by eliminating the Prevention Fund: 326,000 women would not get the breast cancer screening they're slated to receive next year; 248,000 women would not get the cervical cancer screening they're slated to receive next year. Those are big numbers, but every individual case is important to the families that those women live in. So the numbers are staggering, but the specific cases are what is important, and this is hundreds of thousands. This budget would harm children and seniors, literally taking food out of the mouths of babies, as nearly 300,000 children would lose free or reduced-cost school meals--300,000 kids. Wait a minute. We're going to give a $400,000 tax cut to people making over $1 million a year, and we're going to take food from 300,000 children to do that. 1.7 million seniors would lose Meals on Wheels--people are familiar with that in their neighborhoods, in their communities--and other services. It would put Wall Street ahead of middle class and working families by weakening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In the Wall Street reform bill, we not only had the biggest changes in regulations so that the recklessness on Wall Street would no longer cause joblessness on Main Street--the recklessness of some. I don't paint everyone with the same brush. The recklessness of some on Wall Street would not create, again, massive joblessness on Main Street. In that same legislation--and they were the biggest regulation changes in a long time, decades--the biggest change in history was in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This budget weakens consumer protection. That's just not right. So, here we are again with the Republican budget, to name a few. In contrast to this draconian Republican bill, Democrats are fighting for a balanced approach that creates jobs, expands opportunity, reduces the deficit, protects the health and economic security of America's families, and honors the entrepreneurial spirit of America. Republicans are focused on obstruction rather than solutions. Americans have rejected Republican obstructionism and made it clear over and over again: We must work together to find solutions. Because this legislation will have a devastating impact, it's opposed by numerous organizations, from Easter Seals, to the National Women's Law Center, to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Voices for America's Children. As the Obama administration wrote in expressing their strong opposition to this bill, the bill's unbalanced provisions fail the test of fairness and shared responsibility. At the same time the House is advancing tax cuts that benefit the most fortunate Americans, this legislation would impose deep budget cuts that cost jobs and hurt the middle class and vulnerable Americans, especially seniors, veterans, and children. Mr. Speaker, instead of the slash-and-burn approach, let's come together in a bipartisan way, in a balanced way, to cut our deficit by growing the economy, creating growth, creating jobs, bringing in revenue to reduce the deficit, to make the priority choices that reflect the values of our country, the values of fairness and opportunity, of sustaining a thriving middle class for the middle class and all who aspire to it. It is the backbone of our democracy. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this devastating bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership in presenting a commonsense piece of legislation to ensure that the interest on student loans is not doubled in July, and to pay for that by cutting the subsidies to Big Oil instead of, as the Republicans do, continuing their all-out assault on women's health. So much of the time that we spend on this floor seems completely irrelevant to America's working families as they're struggling to make ends meet. Imagine them around their kitchen tables as we talk about this, that, and the other thing that seems disconnected from their emergency and urgent needs. What we're talking about today directly relates to what keeps people up at night: their economic security, the education of their children, the health of their families. The list goes on. Some of those are addressed in this legislation. I think we all agree that the greatest thing the country can do and that a family can do is to invest in the education of the next generation, the education of our children. Imagine if we're sitting around that kitchen table as a family, as we are, and we say as a family, in order for you to go to college, we're not going to be able to immunize your little brother or sister, we're not going to be able to have preventative care in terms of screening for breast cancer, cervical cancer--the list goes on and on--for your mom or any other preventative care for men and women in your family. It just would be wrong. Who are we as a Nation, if that's a statement of our values, to choose between the education of your children and the health of your family? It is just not right. Especially when you have a situation where we had this fight over and over again. But let me put it in context. In 2007, the Democratic majority in the House, working in a bipartisan fashion with our Republican colleagues, passed a bill that ratcheted down the interest rate to 3.4 percent. We were very proud of that legislation passing with 77 members of the Republican Party voting with the Democratic majority. The bill was signed by then-President George W. Bush, and we all celebrated that legislation. That is expiring in July, and if no action is taken, those interest rates of 3.4 will go back to the level of 6.8 percent. We had been making that argument over and over again, which is that in our budgeting we must provide for the education of our children in a way that enables them to acquire a higher education should they desire and be qualified to do so and if that is in their interests and in their families' priorities. Republicans have grown impatient, they've said, with hearing about student loans--don't look at us--until the President went to the public and clearly spelled out the public policy debate that was going on here, which is that in the Republican budget--the Ryan-Republican-Tea Party budget--it enabled the doubling of the interest rates. In the House Democratic budget, we provided for keeping it at 3.4 percent--a big difference if you're sitting at that kitchen table and if you have a college-aged child. It's about the children and the debts they incur. It's about the families and the parents and the debts that their families incur. Because the President took the issue to the American people, he made the issue too hot to handle, so the Republicans this week are doing an about-face for what they did last week, to vote overwhelmingly for their budget, which now has enabled the interest rates on student loans, the Stafford loans, to double. An about-face. But what did they do? They said, Okay, we won't allow it to double, but we're going to take the money from women's health. It should be no surprise to anyone because they have an ongoing assault on women's health. This is in their budget, and this is just a continuation of that; but I think it's important to note the following: that they not only in their bill call for taking the amount of money that would cover the cost of keeping the interest rates at 3.4 percent; they say, while we're at it, let's eliminate the entire fund. Let's eliminate the entire fund for the prevention, for the immunization, for the screening, and for the rest--for the CDC to do its public health work. Let's eliminate it. So that should tell you something about where their priorities are if they're saying, We stand here, once again, handmaidens of the oil industry, protecting subsidies for Big Oil, and instead we want Mom and the children to pay the price with their health. It's just not right. It's just not right. The President made it clear to the public the difference in our approaches on the student loan issue. Now he has made it clear that he will veto this bill if it contains this pay-for. Unfortunately, rather than finding common ground in a way to pay for this critical policy, the Statement of Administration Policy says: This bill includes an attempt to repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which was created to help prevent disease, detect it early, and manage conditions before they become severe. Women, in particular, will benefit from this prevention fund, which would provide for hundreds of thousands of screenings for breast and cervical cancer. This is already happening. This would have to stop under this bill. So let's back up for a moment and say we all want the most educated population in our country so people can reach their self-fulfillments, whatever they decide those are; so we can be competitive in the world market; so we can have an informed electorate in the spirit of the GI Bill, which educated our soldiers when they came home and created a middle class in our country, which is the backbone of our democracy. In a global economy, it is even more necessary for us to be able to have the skills and trained workforce to compete. Let's also recognize that nothing brings more money to the Treasury than the education of the American people. Whether it's early childhood, K 12, higher education, postgrad, lifetime learning--nothing brings more money to the Treasury. So it would be a false economy to deter people from seeking more education. It's also adding insult to injury to say, now that we've finally had to fold on the issue and agree with the Democrats that we should keep the interest rates at 3.4 instead of doubling them to 6.8, we're going to put women and children first as those who will pay for that. It's just not right. I congratulate the President for his message to the American people and for the message of his administration in his Statement of Administration Policy that a veto would be recommended. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for giving us this opportunity to talk about a choice we have here today. Everybody knows that what is essential to a democracy is the education of our children, of investments in the future so that people can reach their own personal self-fulfillment and provide for their families but, also, so that our country can be competitive in the global economy. It is a very important part of the American Dream. Democrats believe in imposing ladders of opportunity where people can have the opportunity to succeed if they want to work hard, play by the rules, take responsibility. An important rung of that ladder is education. We all know the impact that the GI Bill had on America's great middle class, growing America's great middle class, the education of our returning veterans to our country, enabling them to have more education than their parents, and that has been the way it has always been in our country's history, the enduring theme of reigniting the American Dream. So we have a challenge before us, because the clock is ticking on a July deadline. At that time, left to the budget of the Republicans, the Ryan-Republican-Tea Party budget, there would have been a doubling of interest rates from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. We've been having this debate for a while on how we could stop that doubling from happening. Republicans told us they were tired of hearing about the interest rate debate. Until now, thanks to President Obama taking this issue public so that the American people understood what was at stake here and that the doubling of interest rates would deprive some people of even going to college and be more costly for many others. In fact, 7 million students would be affected, and that means at least 20 million people, assuming they have an average of two people in their families. So this has a direct impact on many people in our country. It's a bread-and- butter issue. It's a kitchen table issue where people talk about how they're going to make ends meet, and one of those ends is the education of their children. So all of a sudden Republicans in the House have seen the light. They're willing to reverse a vote that they took not more than a week ago--100 percent of them voted for the Ryan budget, which would allow the interest rates to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Thank God they have seen the light. Thank you, President Obama, for shedding some light on this, and now they say they're for stopping that. But how do they want to pay for it? They want to take it from their favorite target--women's health. I don't know why it hasn't dawned on them yet that the health of America's women is very important to the health of America's families. So they want to take the funds from women's health and then also childhood immunizations. That's very important. Immunization of every child in America is very important to every other child in America. That's where they want to take the money from. The motion that we have here today is to say instead of taking the money, instead of robbing Paula to pay Peter, we should be taking the money from the tax subsidies that go to Big Oil in our country. That's what we should be doing. Isn't that a better show of what our values are, that we value the health of our women and our children? To make matters worse, not only are they suggesting that we take the money from the prevention fund, the immunization and screening for breast cancer and cervical cancer and other women's health issues, not only are they saying we should take the $6 billion from there, they're saying we should take the additional $5 billion that would be left in the account and repeal it. We're taking twice as much money as we need for the student loan bill because we're going to use this as an excuse to do away with this prevention initiative that affects women's health so directly. It's outrageous. We prefer tax subsidies for Big Oil rather than the health of America's women. Once again, they're targeting women's health. So, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so we will have an opportunity to at least put before the House an alternative that says give us a choice to choose between whether we want to pay for our young people's education by removing some of the subsidies to Big Oil or we want to take it out of women's health. The very idea that the Republicans would deny us a vote to do that speaks very clearly about how focused they are on targeting women's health as something that they want to cut. So, again, I urge my colleague to vote ``no'' on the previous question, which would allow the House to vote on a Democratic bill that reduces the interest rates, keeps them at 3.4 instead of raising them to 6.8, which is in the Republican budget. If we cannot do that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived, way-out-of-whack statement of values that we would make women's health pay for children's education when we should be doing both. So ``no'' on the previous question--we're not allowed to at least even take a vote--``no'' on the bill, and let's admit that we can do better than that.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for giving us all this opportunity to speak about what is happening on the floor today. It's happening just as we have returned from 2 weeks with our constituents, listening to them talk about core challenges facing the American people and the key priorities our families, businesses, and workers are facing. Americans have made it clear over and over again. It is their constant message. We must work together to create jobs and grow our economy. We must preserve the economic security of our seniors, the middle class, and small business owners. This is all the backbone of the middle class, the backbone of our democracy. We must protect Medicare and not dismantle it. And yet, Mr. Speaker, our Republican colleagues are at it again. Not once, not twice, not three times, but now four times are they voting to cut the Medicare guarantee. We must protect Medicare. We must enact a budget that reflects our Nation's values of fairness and opportunity and puts the American Dream in reach for every American. Yet, House Republicans simply refuse to listen to what the American people are saying to us. Instead, they have decided to pull a stunt here today and ``deem and pass'' their devastating budget. They know their budget cannot stand the scrutiny of the House, the Senate and the rest, so they want to deem and pass it using a procedural trick to pretend that both the House and the Senate have signed off on their radical agenda. But the American people know better. They know that the Republican budget ends the Medicare guarantee, making seniors pay more to get less on the way to severing the Medicare guarantee completely; that this budget destroys more than 4 million jobs in the next 2 years, destroys jobs. And three, gives a tax cut of nearly $400,000 to people making more than $1 million per year, protects tax breaks for special interests and Big Oil, and forces the middle class to foot the bill. Ends the Medicare guarantee, is a job killer to the tune of 4 million jobs, gives over $400,000 in tax cuts to people making over $1 million a year. How can that be a statement of our national values? We also know that the Republican budget will undermine Medicaid for the elderly and people with disabilities, slash critical investments in education--education, where all innovation springs from, education, the source of America's competitiveness internationally, education, the source of people reaching their aspirations in life. Education, jobs, and health care would be slashed. And we know that cuts have to be made, and important spending decisions must be made. But you just can't say let seniors pay more for Medicare, let's not invest in education and the rest, while we give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. So this bill, called a budget bill, breaks the deal. It breaks the debt agreement. It makes matters worse for the deficit. It breaks the deal struck last summer, abandoning a firm bipartisan promise to the American people. Americans already rejected the Republican budget plan last year, and this year is no different, except the Republicans think so--by bringing it up over and over again, and this time by saying we know it can't pass the Senate, so we'll just deem it passed in the House. Rather than trying to fool the American people, the Republicans are being called upon to join us today in opposing today's previous question and simply allowing the House to vote. And our measure would say, if the Republicans contend--and they do--that their bill does not hurt Medicare, then let the House go on record and say that our measure would prohibit any plan to eliminate Medicare, raise costs, ration care, or reduce the benefits for seniors and people with disabilities. By supporting our proposal we can keep the bedrock promise to our seniors that, after a lifetime of work, all Americans should be able to retire with dignity and security. As Members of Congress, we each have a responsibility to protect Medicare for our seniors, to create jobs for our workers, to grow our economy, to build a strong, all-inclusive, and thriving middle class. As Democrats, we are committed to reigniting the American Dream, to building ladders of opportunity for all who want to work hard, play by the rules, and take responsibility. And we want them all to succeed. We just don't want people that make over $1 million to climb up their ladder, make over $1 million a year, and then pull up the ladder so that no one else can even reach some level of success. We ask our House Republican friends, please let us work together to reach our shared goals to strengthen families, to secure a future of prosperity for all people in our country. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to stop the drive to deem and pass a measure that will end the Medicare guarantee.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his tireless efforts on behalf of America's workers and for his attempts to bring to the floor a bipartisan transportation bill, as has been the custom in our House and as we do have the opportunity to do by taking up the Senate bill. The bill in the Senate has bipartisan support--74, plus one who was absent but voting for the bill. Seventy-five Members of the Senate support that legislation. It is bipartisan. It creates jobs. It is worthy of our support. It has the cosponsorship of the chair and the ranking member of the committee, from Chairwoman Barbara Boxer to Ranking Member Inhofe, a wide array of philosophical thinking, and all of it coming together around a bipartisan initiative. The American people have a right to know why the Republicans in the Senate, the Democrats in the Senate, the President of the United States, and the House Democrats all support this bipartisan bill while the Republicans in the House are odd man out. It calls to mind when there was an odd man out on the payroll tax cut in December, when all the parties had come together in a bipartisan way. But what is dangerous about what is happening here today is that this initiative, this kick-the-can-down-the-road, this my-way-or-no-highway- bill attitude is costing jobs. I'm sure that they have been reviewed-- 41,000 in North Carolina; 4,500 in Illinois; 4,000 in Maryland; and the list goes on and on--just because of the delay and the uncertainty that is injected into the system. This costs the taxpayers more, and small businesses suffer because they cannot proceed with contracts and the rest to go forward. And it is a job-loser, as I mentioned. So this has nothing to recommend it except to be explained by the fact that the Republicans can't even bring their own transportation bill to the floor and pass it. Their own transportation bill is not a good bill, but at least it would take us to conference. They can't vote for their own bill. I don't know how it happens that they have a bill that they can't support. But in addition to not being able to support their own bill--and it's interesting that the budget and transportation are on the floor at the same time--they have this bill, and yet in the budget that they are going to be voting on today, they have cut transportation funding in half: from $90 billion to $46 billion. That's $44 billion worth of jobs, promotion of commerce, improving the quality of life of the American people, building the infrastructure of America, and that means mass transit and all the rest of that. Cut that in half. Oh, and by the way, give a tax break of over $300,000 to the wealthiest people in America. Wealthy people get off fine. Middle class people pay. Small businesses pay. The taxpayer pays. Job-seekers and workers pay the price. So I think it's really important to understand what the bipartisan National Governors Association has said: A string of short-term extensions will only increase uncertainty for State and local governments and the private sector. So, again, I call the House back to its bipartisanship on this legislation. The distinguished chairman, Mr. Mica, has been part of that bipartisanship in the past, and now they come up with a bill that the Republican Secretary of Transportation says is a job-loser and is dangerous to public safety. It's the worst bill he's seen in his 35 years of public service, and his public service has been in this field. Again, it departs from bipartisanship. So I urge my colleagues to not aid and abet the Republicans in going down this path that is not a good one, but to urge them to bring up the Senate bill. It can go to the President's desk today, putting people back to work immediately. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I want to rise to sing the praises of our Democratic members on the House Budget Committee, led by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen). Thank you for bringing us a balanced budget to the floor, a balanced option on how we go forward to the floor. Yes, we know we have to make cuts, and we have to increase revenue, but most of all, we have to increase jobs. Growth is what is important. And the difference between these two budgets, the budget that Mr. Van Hollen is proposing and the Ryan Republican budget, is that the Ryan Republican budget loses jobs. The Van Hollen budget, the Democratic budget, is a job-creator. It's a job-creator. It also invests in education. Think of it, if you're a student and you have a student loan, on July 1 your interest rate will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The Ryan Republican budget says that's just fine. The House Democratic budget prevents that from happening. And if you're a senior, the Ryan budget takes you down a path where the Medicare guarantee is cut. You may have to spend $6,000 or more for less in terms of benefits. All the while, while not protecting our students, while not creating jobs, while not protecting our seniors and their Medicare, the Ryan budget gives an over-$300,000 tax break to people making over $1 million a year. How can that be? How can that be? The more people know about that budget, the more they know that it hurts them and their lives. The budget that is put forth by the House Democrats is a positive one for economic growth, for investing in our small businesses, for honoring the entrepreneurial spirit of America, for strengthening the middle class, for building ladders of opportunity for people who want to work hard, play by the rules, take responsibility for themselves to succeed as we re-ignite the American Dream. So I thank you, Mr. Van Hollen, for your leadership in putting a budget forth that is responsible, that honors our commitment to future generations, that reduces the deficit in a positive way, as opposed to Mr. Ryan's Republican budget. It doesn't even get to deficit reduction, ending that until close to 2040. I mean, the contrast could not be greater. The impact on America's families could not be greater. Just think, seniors pay $6,000 more for fewer benefits in Medicare, while they give a $300,000 tax cut to the wealthiest people in our country. You be the judge. Is that a budget that is a statement of your values? Vote ``yes'' on the Van Hollen budget. Vote ``no'' on the Ryan Republican budget.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the Speaker for yielding. I am proud to join him to honor the long and distinguished service of the House Parliamentarian, John Sullivan. For 25 years, as has been said, he has served the House with distinction and dignity, integrity and intellect. He has used his keen mind, excellent legal training, and a commitment to public service to make nonpartisan, objective decisions. Always first in his mind was the Constitution and, therefore, his undying respect for the institution of Congress. Indeed, through his service and his example, John Sullivan has become an institution himself, a source of wise counsel and parliamentary leadership, and though his name rarely makes headlines and though his hard work is seldom noticed in the public eye, the American people have benefited greatly from his extraordinary career. A proud son of northwest Indiana, John Sullivan was a lawyer by training, a graduate of the Air Force Academy, and served our Nation in the Judge Advocate General's Office of the Air Force. He went on to advise the House Armed Services Committee before joining the Parliamentarian's office. He would ultimately hold the title of Parliamentarian of the House of Representatives, a post occupied by only three others in the past 75 years. He has been a fair and independent voice, a professional of the highest caliber, a careful steward of the rules of the House, a true public servant. Mr. Speaker, as a point of personal pride, on June 2, 1987, I was sworn in as a result of a special election, and I was the first Member of Congress to take the oath of office during John's tenure. For many reasons, he will hold a long place of honor in the history of the House, and in my personal history as well. In a recent story on his career, John Sullivan summed up the key characteristics of his success. In his own words, he said, ``You have to be very attentive to every syllable being uttered and able to think on your feet,'' as the Speaker said. Attention to detail, quick thinking, staying attuned to the letter of the law, these were the hallmarks of John Sullivan's service. He has left a lasting legacy, and I am confident that his deputy and replacement, Tom Wickham, will continue in the same fine tradition. We owe a debt of gratitude to all of our Parliamentarians. We owe a special debt of gratitude and our heartfelt thanks on this day to our Parliamentarian, John Sullivan. He has earned the respect and the admiration of Members of Congress, and he will be missed. We wish him and his wife, Nancy, and his children our best wishes for their future endeavors. Congratulations and thank you, John Sullivan.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee for yielding to tell him how proud he makes us all for his important work in constructing a Democratic alternative to the Republican budget, that is, Mr. Van Hollen's budget proposal that is a statement of our national values that says to the American people what is important to you about the education, health and well-being of our children, the economic security of their families, and the health security of our seniors, those are important values to us; and those values are reflected in the Democratic alternative. The Republican Ryan bill, on the other hand, I do not believe is a statement of our national values as to what is important to the American people as reflected in their budget priorities. But you be the judge. Would it be a statement of your values if you had a budget that said to seniors we're going to end the Medicare guarantee and you're going to pay $6,000 or more while you get less in terms of benefits, while at the same time, we're going to give an over $300 billion tax break to the wealthiest people in our country? Would that be a statement of your values, this $6,000 more for seniors with fewer benefits, $300,000 or more to the richest people in our country? Would it be a statement of your values for you, my colleagues and the American people you represent, if you had a budget that said to Big Oil, we're going to continue to subsidize you to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, but at the same time, we're going to freeze Pell Grants, we're going to eliminate them for 400,000 young people and make them less available to over 9 million young people? Lower the benefits for some, eliminate it for others, and use the money to give tax subsidies to Big Oil, Big Oil which is making tens of billions of dollars in record profits each year? Would it be a statement of your values if you said in your budget that all of those young people who are now children who have a preexisting medical condition--asthma, diabetes, birth defect--any of those preexisting medical conditions, under present law, under the Affordable Care Act, they may not be discriminated against in obtaining health insurance? But the Republican budget says they should be because we're going to eliminate that. To the 2.5 million young people who are now on their parents' policies until they're 26 years old, this budget says ``no'' to you too. We're eliminating that. We're too busy giving tax breaks to the richest people in America. And while we're at it, with young people just graduating from college, some of them may have student loans, and in the House budget--thank you, Mr. Van Hollen--in the House budget, we have a provision that says that come July 1, the interest on those loans will not double. We have taken care of that. Under the circumstances, the path we're on, the interest rates would go from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The House Democratic budget says ``no'' to that doubling of interest. The Republican budget keeps it the same. That's just to name a few things that I think may not be a statement of the values of the American people, whether it's interest paid on student loans, availability of Pell Grants to young people, ending the Medicare guarantee, and as the distinguished ranking member said, right now today, overturning the resources that were put in the Affordable Care Act to reduce, to narrow the doughnut hole. Maybe 5 million seniors have benefited to the tune of $3.2 billion already in the bill. Also, there are preventative services; there are annual wellness visits without a copay. So we're talking about kitchen table items for people where people are trying to make ends meet, where people wonder about if their children will be able to go to college, and if they do, will they be able to have health insurance so that when they look for a job, they can reach their aspirations without having their choices only narrowed by whether they have health insurance or not until the bill comes into full effect. So there are just a couple of things that I would want people to know about this bill. They are: ends the Medicare guarantee; ends the Medicare guarantee; ends the Medicare guarantee while making seniors pay more for less, while giving over $300 billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. And by the way, did I mention it? It's a job loser. So I urge my colleagues to enthusiastically support the House Democratic proposal, which is a statement of our values and which our distinguished colleague will present--I don't know if it's tonight or tomorrow morning. I understand that it keeps changing. The House Democratic alternative invests in America's priorities, creates jobs, protects our seniors and our students, strengthens the middle class. Democrats protect Medicare; Republicans dismantle Medicare. The Democratic plan asks the wealthiest to pay their fair share and put our fiscal house in order; the Republican plan gives them more than the tax break they've had, they almost double their tax break. Our Democratic plan reflects the most enduring theme in America, the American Dream. Democrats want to reignite the American Dream, to build ladders of opportunity for all who want to work hard, play by the rules, and take responsibility. It does this by investing in small businesses and entrepreneurialism in our country, by strengthening the middle class. In that regard, we believe that our budget is a statement of our values. We call upon our Republican colleagues to work with us on a budget that reflects our values. We must work together to protect and strengthen Medicare. We must put people back to work and build a broadly shaped prosperity for all Americans. We must make it in America to stop the erosion of our manufacturing base. We must rebuild America, putting people back to work. We must do this with community involvement. And all of these things strengthen the middle class, which is exactly what our Democratic alternative achieves. For the sake of our seniors, for our families, for our children, for our workers, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Republican plan, which ends the Medicare guarantee and makes seniors pay $6,000 or more for fewer benefits while it gives $300,000 in tax breaks to the wealthiest people in the United States. And it costs us jobs to do so and doesn't reduce the deficit until nearly 2040. It's not a good deal for the American people. The Democratic budget is. I urge a ``yes'' on the Van Hollen budget, a ``no'' on the Ryan Republican budget.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I couldn't resist the opportunity to come to the floor to speak on the situation that we have before us. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for his ongoing leadership in terms of bipartisanship and constructive legislation to rebuild America, which is so important to us. It has been the tradition--Mr. Mica will admit--that this has always been a bipartisan effort. That is the history. That is the tradition. That has served the country well. For the first time, however, the Republicans have chosen to do a strictly Republican bill which our very respected Secretary of Transportation who served in this House as a Republican, served as a Member of Congress as well as served the minority leader, Mr. Mica, as a staff person, so he has a long history of knowledge of legislation in the Congress, said this was the worst transportation bill he had seen in his 35 years of public service--and, again, this is a field in which he is an expert. He said the bill loses jobs, the bill Republicans want to put forth, H.R. 7, and it also diminishes safety. That is not a formula for a good transportation bill--less safety, fewer jobs, losing jobs. And so, we have an opportunity to support a bipartisan bill that has come from the Senate, three-quarters of the Senate in a bipartisan way passed it out. March 31 is the deadline when all of this will expire unless Congress acts, and Congress is not acting because the Republican majority does not have its act together. Their ``our way or the highway'' attitude means no highway bill that creates jobs and promotes public safety. It's really so sad because in the tradition of our country, from the start, from the very start, Thomas Jefferson understood the need for building the infrastructure of America. He tasked his Secretary of the Treasury, Gallatin, to come up with a project that would expand into America, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Lewis and Clark expeditions. And out of that initiative came the Cumberland Road, the Erie Canal, and other things like that over time, and in that tradition, the Transcontinental Railroad and the rest that would come later. Then in our century, a Republican President, President Eisenhower, at a time of bad economic times, bad economic times, he went forward and took the initiative for the interstate highway initiative, which was so important to our country. It was a security issue to unite America. It was a jobs initiative to build that interstate highway system. And it was about promoting commerce, connecting people, and improving the quality of life. It was a great initiative, and it, too, was a bipartisan initiative. In fact, in the Senate, our friend, Senator Gore, Vice President Gore, his father took the lead on that legislation, the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, as we heard earlier from the gentlemen from Tennessee. So this has all been a bipartisan initiative. It's about rebuilding America, which is part of our reigniting the American Dream to build ladders of opportunities so people who work hard, play by the rules, and take responsibility can have a ladder of success to climb and then put down for others to do. And part of that is A, Make It In America so that people can make it in America; and B, and I get to this point, build America, build America, build the infrastructure of America. And that means everything from the highways with mass transit, rapid transit, high-speed rail, and all kinds of technological infrastructure that we need with broadband and the rest. It doesn't have any political or partisan cast to it at all. It never has--until now. And until now, for reasons that are very hard to explain to the American people, while we have a solution, we have a challenge. The authorization expires March 31. We have a bill that can be sent to the President in a matter of hours from this House of Representatives this day. And instead of smoothing the way, the road to jobs, we have the Republicans putting up, yet again, another obstacle because they have not been able to get unity in their caucus on a bill that promotes commerce, builds America, promotes safety, and creates jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. So what are we doing wasting the public's time with a 60-day extension? I support the leadership of our ranking member, Mr. Rahall, when he talks about why we have to do something better, something more important, something more worthy of the concerns of the American people than a parliamentary maneuver that isn't going to produce anything. It doesn't even have anything attached to it that says, let's do this now so that we can do something better later. It has a bill that they cannot even pass on the House floor, their own H.R. 7. If they could pass that, they would. Their own caucus doesn't support what they're putting forth. So they expect the rest of us to cover for them. Well, that is a real disservice to the American people. It is a real disservice to the hundreds of thousands of construction workers who are out of work. This job in its totality, and the jobs it would save and the jobs it would create, over 2 million jobs, and yet instead of doing that, we have a tactical maneuver for God knows what reason. Everything we do is about time. It's about time, shortening the time in which people have to wait for jobs, shortening the times in which people get to and from their jobs. And it's about time that we put the American people back to work by passing the biggest jobs bill that Congress can ever pass, and that is a transportation bill. We have it right at our disposal. Mr. Bishop introduced it as H.R. 14, we brought it up earlier today, and the Republicans resoundingly voted against the Senate bill. And I understand it was a procedural vote. Now in a substantive vote, why don't you bring that bill to the floor? Why don't you bring that bill to the floor? And I ask the question again to my Republican colleagues: Why don't you bring the bill to the floor that three-quarters of the United States Senate in a bipartisan way passed out? We all want a longer bill. This is the bill they can pass. This is the bill we should pass so that the President can sign it into law. Anything else is just a conversation. Taking action, taking the votes, that is what the American people expect us to do. So we can talk all we want. What the American people want us to do is to act. And so I reject 60 days when we can do something much better for the American people.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate his leadership for helping us honor what our Founders put forth in our founding documents, which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that is exactly what the Affordable Care Act helps to guarantee: a healthier life, the liberty to pursue happiness free of the constraints that the lack of health care might provide to a family. If you want to be a photographer, a writer, an artist, a musician, you can do so. If you want to start a business, if you want to change jobs, under the Affordable Care Act, you have that liberty to pursue your happiness. So that is why I am so pleased that this week we can celebrate the 2- year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act; and I want to mention some of the provisions that are in it but not before mentioning that the legislation on the floor today is a feeble attempt to unravel legislation that makes a big difference in the lives of America's families. You be the judge: if you are a family with a child with asthma, diabetes, is bipolar, has a preexisting medical condition, up until this bill, your child could be discriminated against for life of ever receiving affordable health insurance and, therefore, care. The full thrust of the law does not take place until 2014; but already, for months now, no child in America can be denied health coverage because of a preexisting condition, and soon all Americans will have that same protection. For the first time in American history, millions of American women and seniors have access to free preventive health services, services that prevent, that are better early intervention to detect a possible illness in a person. Eighty-six million Americans have already received key preventive health benefits under the law, and more than 5 million seniors have saved over $3.2 billion in prescription drug expenses. Already, $3.2 billion in prescription drug benefits because of provisions of the law that are already in effect. So if you're a senior and you're caught in the doughnut hole, or you would have been, you are already benefiting from this law. And that's what the Republicans are trying to take away from you, from your family, from your life, from your liberty, from your pursuit of happiness. The last point about seniors and prescription drugs is particularly important because it fits in with our consistent commitment from day one as authors of Medicare in the sixties, fits with our consistent commitment to always strengthen Medicare for American seniors, never weaken it. Indeed, as I mentioned, Democrats created Medicare, sustained Medicare, and Democrats will always protect Medicare even from language that is so misleading as to make one wonder. Republicans, on the other hand, have voted to end Medicare. End the Medicare guarantee. They have said that their goal for Medicare is for it to wither on the vine. And tonight's legislation is a part of the withering on the vine. It's important for you to know that if you care about Medicare, if you depend on Medicare, this is the wither-on-the-vine scenario. In fact, just yesterday, the Republicans released their budget, which would end the Medicare guarantee and shift cost to seniors. End the guarantee. What does that mean? Shift cost to seniors--perhaps up to $6,400 for most seniors a year--and, again, let Medicare wither on the vine. That's why today's legislation is such a cynical political ploy. And I know that American seniors will not be fooled by it. Today brought legislation to repeal what is known as IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Independent. Independent of political influence over decisions that are made. This piece of the legislation was a bend-the-curve to reduce the cost of health care in America. Republicans are desperate to distract seniors from their real record on Medicare, and that's what they're trying to do today. I say that without any fear of contradiction and without any hesitation because nothing less is at stake than the well-being of our seniors, their personal health, and their economic health. And that means their security. Further, in this bill Republicans have recycled their old medical malpractice liability legislation that undermines states' rights and hurts the rights of injured patients to obtain just compensation. Because of the impact on American States of what they're trying to do in this bill, the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures has strongly opposed this bill. That bipartisan group says that after a careful review it had reached ``the resounding bipartisan conclusion that Federal medical malpractice legislation is unnecessary.'' Again, Madam Speaker, this week we celebrate the 2-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act for what it embodies. It's about innovation. It's about not just health care in America but a healthier America. It's about prevention and innovation. It's about customized, personalized care. It's about electronic medical records. It's about lowering costs, expanding access, and improving quality. So much misleading information is put out there about it that it's important to keep repeating the difference, the transformative nature of the legislation. In fact, it has already begun to transform the lives of America's children by saying no longer will they be denied coverage because they have a preexisting medical condition. And soon we can fully say that no longer being a woman is a preexisting medical condition, where women are discriminated against to the tune of a billion dollars a year, and cost of premiums, not to mention exclusion from obtaining coverage. And so I proudly celebrate the 2-year anniversary, and I emphatically oppose the legislation on the floor. If you want to unravel Medicare, vote ``aye.'' If you want to support Medicare, if you think health care is a right for the many, not just a privilege for the few, vote ``no.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Mr. Roe, for yielding. I thank you and I thank our colleague, Congresswoman Christensen, for taking this Special Order today so that we can sing the praises of a great man, our colleague, dear friend, precious person, Donald Payne. I waited. I said I wanted to go after Mr. Cleaver because I didn't know how I was going to even have the strength to come to the floor because this is a personal as well as official loss to many of us here. And he is always a source of strength to us, putting in perspective the fragility of life and the value that we must place on the contribution of all of our colleagues, especially when we are blessed with the life, service, and leadership of someone like Donald Payne. There are very few people that you can say ``someone like Donald Payne,'' because he was exceptional and unique. When the distinguished Mr. Cleaver and Reverend Cleaver says that we have to fill in where and take his mantle, that would be almost impossible to do because, over a lifetime, in public service, and a long time in the Congress of the United States, Donald Payne gained standing on issues that takes years to do. But he did teach us along the way. He gave us guidance on what paths to follow, what clues to recognize, and doing the right thing, whether it was in the continent of Asia, Africa, or Latin America, wherever it was, and in our own country. I had the privilege of traveling with Donald Payne when we were going to Darfur. He didn't want to go to the Sudan. He'd been there many times, Darfur, but he was at that moment boycotting the regime in Khartoum because of how they treated their people there. And while we were in Khartoum and in Darfur, he was in Ethiopia and Somalia and the rest, always working, always working to have policy advice to all of us and caring about what the impact of that policy was on people. What was interesting to us, though, it was on that same trip to Africa, which many of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus were on, including our distinguished assistant leader, Mr. Clyburn, when we went to Liberia it was a boiling hot day. And we all went to the AME college there, the AME university, and they were honoring Donald Payne for his everything, for what he knew about Africa, for his values and how he was concerned about, again, policy as it related to people, the encyclopedic knowledge that he had, the great wisdom that sprang from that knowledge, the plans that he always had to make things better, and the way people just flocked to him because they would learn, they would be inspired, and they would love Donald Payne. It was boiling hot. And we go there and they decide that we're all going to dress alike that day, so it even got hotter as we donned our robes. And here we were, seeing--not only telling them the esteem with which he was held in Congress, that was the least of it, because what we were hearing was what people from around Africa, the esteem in which they held him, named a library for him at that university in Liberia. He was a schoolteacher, and he never forgot how important it was for us to put our students first. He called them the bright lights of our Nation's future, for investing in their potential, for inspiring them to succeed, igniting the sparks that they had within them to do their very best. He was very proud of Newark and serving there. I remember when he first came here, his work on behalf of his constituents, his neighbors, the middle class, working people, people who were striving to reach up into the middle class, he was always working for them. He was New Jersey's, as has been mentioned, first African American Member of Congress. He remained a committed champion of equality and opportunity for all. His accomplishments, both on his committee, where he served with Congressman George Miller, who holds him in the highest esteem, and now the Foreign Affairs Committee, where he serves with Congressman Howard Berman. Well, to hear the two of them talk today as if they have lost a brother, and we all have. We all have an appreciation of his hard work ethic. The knowledge that he brought to his subject, the concern he had for the American people, and the love he had for our country. Just think, last week we had a visit to our office from Bill Gates coming to our office to talk about the issue of global health, and he asked if Donald Payne could be in the meeting. We had hoped that would be possible but then had to say that he was not feeling well that day. That was a week ago. But up until the end, he was in demand, recognized for his, again, standing on issues that related to the alleviation of poverty, the eradication of disease, again, alleviation of hunger throughout the world. What more could be about the gospel of Matthew than ministering to the needs of God's creation, which the Bible tells us is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us. Donald Payne was all about worshipping God by ministering to the needs. He was an expert on economic, political, and security situations throughout Africa, and I had the honor of nominating him, recognizing his extraordinary work around the world. I was proud to recommend that President George W. Bush name Congressman Payne, our representative of the House Democrats, at the United Nations. Usually it was just for one term. In the case of Donald Payne, we went well beyond that in recognition of the extraordinary contribution that he makes. So again, whether it was in his own district, whether it was Newark, New Jersey, or across the world, he was a powerful and passionate voice. I hope it's a comfort to his children--to Donald, Jr., to Wanda, and Nicole--and all who loved Donald Payne, his dear brother, Bill, who traveled with him frequently and loved him so much, I hope it's a comfort to them that so many people who knew him well, loved him so much, mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time. With that, Mr. Speaker, I again thank Mr. Roe and Congresswoman Christensen for the opportunity to say just a few things about our dear friend who will be sadly missed and long remembered. His legacy lives on in the Congress of the United States.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation and commend Congresswoman Sewell and Congresswoman Roby for their leadership in bringing this to the floor and giving us the opportunity to speak about the heroes amongst us. In some of the darkest hours of our Nation's history, as we all know, there are stories of great courage. By preserving these stories, which this legislation enables us to do, we ensure that those who come after us will know that the cause of equality is both our Nation's heritage and our hope. Unsurpassed in courage in our midst is our colleague, the conscience of the Congress, Congressman John Lewis. On March 7, 1965, as many of us all know, Congressman John Lewis was the leader of 600 peaceful, orderly Americans crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge. He was met by State troopers, tear gas, bullwhips, and nightsticks. Though he faced great prejudice and discrimination, he was not embittered; he was emboldened to dedicate his life to the cause of justice and equality. It is a great privilege for each of us to serve with John Lewis in Congress, an honor to call him colleague. I want to speak about his leadership in taking so many Members of Congress and their families and friends across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in recent years. I had the privilege to join him in the year 2001. After the visit, I said to him, of the 3 days we were in your district, Congresswoman Roby, in Montgomery, Selma, and in Birmingham, and the course of the weekend, that the experience was one that every schoolchild in America should experience. We talked about Washington, DC; Philadelphia and Independence Hall; Baltimore and Fort McHenry; Boston with all of that history; New York and the rest, but this is a very important part of who we are as a country. If you want to learn about America, it's important to visit these sites to see the courage, to see the commitment to the values of our Founders that were so courageously defended and advocated for. At this sad time, and for many of us it was in our lifetimes that this disaster was happening in our country, this ongoing disaster, the culmination of it took so many people a longer time to see. We always talk about the inevitable in the minds of some and the inconceivable in the minds of others, and how our work is to shorten the distance between the inevitable and the inconceivable. Well, it took some people a much longer time to understand what was inevitable for America, that we would be moving, gravitating toward a more perfect union. That would not have been possible without the leadership of people like John Lewis. There aren't many people like John Lewis, but who followed his lead. There are other Members of Congress who also were leaders in the Nation's civil rights movement, and we honor all of them today. They include Assistant Leader Jim Clyburn, who was arrested several times for his civil disobedience on behalf of civil rights; Congressman Barney Frank and Congressman John Conyers, who both volunteered during the Freedom Summer; Congressman Bob Filner, who spent several months in jail after his efforts as a Freedom Rider, and he takes great pride in being invited back to the reunion of the Freedom Riders; Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, who was an organizer of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; and Congresswoman Terri Sewell, who, along with Congresswoman Roby, is a cosponsor of this legislation. Congresswoman Sewell is from Selma, and her family opened their home to travelers on the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery. I am sure there are more, but all of these people played a role. John Lewis, of course, an icon in our country for his leadership at that time. These American heroes made history. They also made progress for our country. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this legislation to ensure that our history and the heroes of it, that that history lives on long after we are gone.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in San Francisco, I am proud to honor Dr. Robert A. Corrigan in his final year as President of San Francisco State University. He has been a visionary leader in higher education and has made enormous contributions to San Francisco, California, and indeed, to our entire nation. During his 24-year tenure, President Corrigan transformed San Francisco State University into a premier urban university that reflects the diversity of the city it serves, works on behalf of social justice, and educates a 21st century workforce. President Corrigan has studied and taught at a number of prominent universities; how proud we were when he chose to come to San Francisco State University. President Corrigan was an early pioneer for diversity in education. At San Francisco State, he made a steadfast commitment to diversity of background, ethnicity, and gender in faculty hiring. He established groundbreaking initiatives to incorporate women and minorities into the faculty, resulting in one of the most diverse faculties of any U.S. university. Under President Corrigan's direction and guidance, San Francisco State evolved into the ``College with a Conscience,'' boasting a multicultural campus, and a faculty and student body that are actively engaged in public service. San Francisco State's Institute for Civic and Community Service is recognized as a national model. In 2001, San Francisco State assumed management of the City's Head Start Program, one of the few universities to do so, serving 1,800 low-income children. Corrigan made access to a quality education a priority of his presidency. With his wife, he established the Robert and Joyce Corrigan SF Promise Endowed Scholarship Fund that places higher education within reach of students from underserved, low-income neighborhoods. Joining forces with the City of San Francisco, they created an initiative that ensures admission and financial assistance to qualified San Francisco high school graduates, many of whom are the first in their family to attend college. Indeed, San Francisco State boasts one of the highest percentage of first-generation college students in the nation. President Corrigan's visionary leadership has been recognized by many. Most notably, he was handpicked by President Bill Clinton to chair the Steering Committee of College and University Presidents for the ``America Reads Challenge'' and ``America Counts'' initiatives. President Corrigan has been an educator, a role model, and a dynamic leader. On behalf of many of my constituents, I express gratitude for his 24 years of service at San Francisco State University.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his relentless and persistent advocacy on behalf of a thriving middle class in our country and his work to ensure that we would have this payroll tax cut as well as the extension of unemployment insurance that he fought so hard on, as well as on making sure that our seniors are able to see their doctors under Medicare. Congratulations and thank you, Mr. Levin. I rise today, Madam Speaker, in support of this legislation. Of course, I identify with the concerns expressed by our distinguished whip, Mr. Hoyer, and of Mr. Van Hollen regarding our public employees. Before I talk directly about what is in the bill, I do want to say that for our country to thrive and for us to do our very best, we must have a great relationship between the public and the private sector. The private sector is the driving engine of job creation in our country, but it cannot succeed unless we also have an effective and thriving public sector. It's about so many things that relate to our public safety. The courts, the implementation of laws passed in Congress, they don't exist unless the public sector then implements them. So this is a symbiotic relationship that has existed from the beginning of time in our country. It's not a zero sum game. We cannot say we're going to do this in the private sector at the expense of the public sector. So I salute them for their persistent leadership and recognizing the important role that the public sector plays. It was not necessary for us to go down the path that has been taken in this bill, and I'll get to that in a moment. First, I want to say that this represents a victory for the middle class in our country, and I salute President Obama for going out there so strongly and taking this message to the American people that it was very important for us to have a payroll tax cut for the middle class. It's important to those families because it puts $40 more into a paycheck to buy groceries, to buy gasoline, and to make ends meet--to make ends meet. In addition to being personally helpful to families, it has a macroeconomic effect because these families will immediately spend that money and inject demand into the economy, and that is a job creator. Any economist will tell you that this is very important to continuing the economic recovery in our country. To have rejected it, as had been in the mix earlier, would have halted, if not turned back, our economic recovery. So let us recognize that we had three pillars that we insisted be in this package, we on the Democratic side, one that we would have a payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans, preferably unpaid for, and that is the way it is in this bill. What is unfortunate is that we did not use our choice of a pay-for, should it be paid for, the surcharge, to cover the unemployment insurance. That would have been a preferable place to go, the extension of unemployment insurance. It could have also been used to pay for the SGR, the ability for seniors to see their doctors instead of taking money out of the prevention piece of the Affordable Care Act. Prevention makes America healthier, it saves money, and it expands opportunity for people to get in the health care loop. That's unfortunate, and it could have been avoided as well as the unfortunate provision relating to our public employees. Even on that score, Mr. Hoyer said, as Mr. Van Hollen did, there was a further compromise that could have been made that addressed some of the needs of the Republicans to vote for this bill without doing more harm to, as Mr. Hoyer said, the recruitment and the retention of public employees, the best--the best--public employees to help implement our laws. And I want to salute all of them for their patriotic duty to our country, to make and keep us safe in every possible way, and to allow commerce to proceed in a very positive way. Now let's get back to why this is important, this victory for the middle class. This was a fight. Why should it have been a fight? There's something out there in the public, the ``ground truth,'' the common sense coming up from the ground that this was an important thing to do; and the American people overwhelmingly supported it. There's a ground truth out there from the public, common sense coming up from the ground, that in order for us meet our needs and also reduce the deficit, that we should have a surcharge on the wealthiest people in our country, people making over $1 million a year--not having a million dollars--making over $1 million a year. That was not contained in this bill, but it will be part of the debate as we go forward. So let's take a moment to say that we recognize here on this floor of the House the importance of a thriving middle class to our democracy--to our democracy--and that this action taken today is an important step, but we have much more work to do. Democrats are committed to reigniting the American Dream, to building ladders of opportunity for all who want to work hard, play by the rules and take responsibility. But we have work to do. In this thriving--this reigniting--American Dream, it's about recognizing the role of entrepreneurialism in our system of small businesses and what they do to grow our economy and how we have a public-private relationship there to encourage small business. And also, again, all of this relates to a thriving middle class. So I urge my colleagues to be ever-vigilant about every opportunity we can take to support the middle class. Today is a good day in that regard. It's just one piece of it, though. We have much more work to do. In any bill that comes up, there are things you may not like in it, and you say: Well, I'm not going to vote for it for that reason. On balance, I come down in favor of supporting what the President asked us to do, which we did do, and what the American people want us to do. But I don't want to go forward without registering the concern that we could have done better in this. One place we can start on our next legislation is to look at the surcharge for the wealthiest people in America instead of taking billions of dollars from preventive care so that we can offset the cost in here. None of it needed to be offset. The payroll tax cut has not been, unemployment insurance has not traditionally been paid for, and we didn't have to do it now. In fact, paying for it diminishes some of its stimulative effect because economists will tell you unemployment insurance benefits paid out are immediately spent back into the Treasury, as the payroll tax cut will be too, and stimulates the economy by injecting demand and creating more jobs. SGR, we should have gone all the way with it. We should have done it permanently. We could have paid for it with our war savings or with a surcharge at the high end. Republicans said no. Having said all of that, the fact that we are here today is an admission that this is the right thing to do in terms of the payroll tax cut and unemployment compensation and our seniors. It's a recognition that the American people are watching, and they have little appetite for us to be fighting over what they know is the right thing to do, which is to take every action we can to grow our economy, focusing on the middle class, small business, entrepreneurial spirit, and the rest. Again, we have important work to do to reignite the American Dream in even bigger ways. So with that, Madam Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House in relationship to the transportation bill that we are currently debating in the House this week. Transportation, as you know, has traditionally and historically been an idea where our two parties have been able to find common ground. Transportation has been an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats, alike, to work to rebuild America, to create jobs, strengthen our economy, move commerce, move people, improve the quality of life, including public safety--that is, up until now; and that is, until this bill. With the legislation that we are debating today, Republicans put forth the most partisan transportation package in 50 years. It is not just partisan; it's bad for our Nation, destroying more than half a million American jobs. The transportation bill is supposed to be a job- creating bill. It always has been--until now. Destroying more than half a million jobs, cutting highway investments in 45 States, bankrupting the highway trust fund with a $78 billion shortfall, and, just the strangest of all, among many shortsighted provisions in the bill, I want to make particular mention of what it does to public transportation. It eliminates all of the dedicated funding for public transportation, leaving millions of riders already faced with service cuts and fare increases out in the cold. The legislation is so detrimental to our Nation that the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, a former Member of this body on the Republican side of the aisle, has said: This is the most partisan transportation bill that I have ever seen, and it is also the most antisafety bill I have ever seen. It hollows out our number one priority, which is safety, and frankly, it hollows out the guts of the transportation efforts that we've been about for the last 3 years. It's the worst transportation bill I've ever seen during 35 years of public service. In recommending that the President veto this legislation, the administration has said: The legislation would make America's roads, rails, and transit systems less safe, reduce the transportation options available to America's traveling public, short-circuit local decision making, and turn back the clock on environmental and labor protections. Mr. Speaker, this is so unfortunate because it's so out of character with the American way, the common sense of the American people about what we should be doing for them. At the beginning of our country, Thomas Jefferson, when he was President, enlisted his Cabinet officers to build an infrastructure plan for America that involved transportation. In the 1800s, this plan, under Secretary Gallatin, the Secretary of the Treasury, was put forth. It recognized that we had made the Louisiana Purchase, that there were Lewis and Clark expeditions going on, and that we had to build America--build roads and transportation out into these territories so that people would move there, commerce would develop, our country would be strong. Following this, the Erie Canal, the transcontinental railroad, the Cumberland Road, they were all built after the War of 1812--of course, the transcontinental railroad later than that--when our population was sparse and so was our national treasury. In my own community of San Francisco, the Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco Bay Bridge both were built 75 years ago in the midst of the Great Depression. President Eisenhower in the mid- to late fifties, not a good economic time either, built and instituted the Interstate Highway System, unifying our country. It was a national security issue to unify our country. It was done at a time when our coffers were low on money, but it created jobs. It did what it was intended to do. Now we are abdicating our responsibility. Again, 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson; 100 years later, Teddy Roosevelt, and his initiative for infrastructure centered around our national park system and how we make that part of our national patrimony, and some of that falls under the Transportation Subcommittee of the Congress of the United States. Now, here we are, 100 years later, putting forth a bill that loses jobs, diminishes public safety. It's a missed opportunity, and it's no wonder our Republican colleagues are having so much trouble building support for it in their own caucus. I just wanted to take a moment to share my views with our colleagues about how wrong this is for the future and how out of keeping it is with our great past, which has seen the strength of our country grow because of our investments in our infrastructure and our bringing people together through transportation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for giving us this opportunity to discuss an important matter--the integrity of Congress--on the floor of the House. I, too, want to join the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Cantor, in praising the leadership of Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, our ranking member on the Rules Committee, and Congressman Tim Walz for their extraordinary leadership over time, their persistence, the approach that they have taken to this to remove all doubt in the public's mind, if that is possible, that we are here to do the people's business and not to benefit personally from it. I listened attentively to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Cantor's remarks about the STOCK Act and its importance. And it just raises a question to me as to, if it is so important, and it certainly is, why we could not have worked in a more bipartisan fashion either to accept the Senate bill which was developed in a bipartisan fashion and passed the Senate--what was it?--94-6. It's hard to get a result like 94-6 in Congress these days, but they were able to get the result because they worked together to develop their legislation. We had two good options. One was to accept the Senate bill, or to take up the Slaughter-Walz legislation which has nearly 300 cosponsors. Almost 100 Republicans cosponsored the original STOCK Act. The discharge petition has been calling upon the leadership to bring that bill to the floor. What's important about that is that if we passed that bill, we could go to conference and take the best and strongest of both bills to get the job done. Instead, secretly, the Republicans brought a much-diminished bill to the floor. It has some good features. So I urge our colleagues to vote for it to bring the process along. What's wrong with it, though, is that it makes serious omissions. And I want to associate myself with the remarks that had been made earlier; but I think they bear repetition, in any event. Senator Grassley's remarks are stunning. It is really a stunning indictment of the House Republicans in terms of their action on this bill. And I know my colleague has read this into the Record already, but I will, too. Senator Grassley said: ``It's astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street's wishes by killing this provision''--that would be the provision on political intelligence. ``The Senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry that's behind the scenes. If the Senate language is too broad, as opponents say, why not propose a solution instead of scrapping the provision altogether? I hope to see a vehicle for meaningful transparency through a House-Senate conference or other means. If Congress delays action, the political intelligence industry will stay in the shadows, just the way Wall Street likes it.'' Well, the Senator's statement is very widely covered. The Hill today has a big, full page, ``Grassley: Republicans caved. Iowa Senator says House doing Wall Street's bidding.'' I think it is important to note that on the Senate side there was interest in doing this study that is now in the House bill, and it was rejected by the Senate by a 60-39 vote, to include the political intelligence provision in the bill, rejecting the study. Now that that has already been rejected in the Senate, it's resurrected on the House side, a weakening of the bill. So whether it's the political intelligence piece proposed by Senator Grassley or Senator Leahy's piece about corruption, I think it is really important that those two elements be included in the bill. A good way to do that, to find a path to bipartisanship in the strongest possible bill, is to pass the bill today despite its serious shortcomings. And it is hard to understand why the shortcomings are there, but nonetheless they are. But pass the bill today and go to conference. To pass earlier or to accept the Senate bill, or to take the original STOCK Act, strong STOCK Act to the floor. Both of those were rejected. Pass this bill and go to conference. It is very important that the House and the Senate meet to discuss these very important issues. With all due respect to a study on political intelligence, that's really just a dodge. That is just a way to say we're not going to do the political intelligence piece. So again, with serious reservations about the bill but thinking that the better course of action is to pass it, and I don't want anybody to interpret the strong vote for it to be a seal of approval of what it is, but just a way of pushing the process down the line so that we can move expeditiously to go to conference for the strongest possible bill. I want to close again by saluting Congresswoman Louise Slaughter and Congressman Tim Walz for their relentless persistence and dedication to this issue. Had they not had this discharge petition and the nearly 300 cosponsors, bipartisan, nearly 100 of them Republicans, I doubt that we would even be taking up this bill today. So congratulations and thank you.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, all of us come to the floor today, colleagues of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, to salute her as the brightest star among us, the brightest star Congress has ever seen. When she came to Congress and in her service and leadership here, Gabby Giffords brought to Washington and the Capitol the views of a new generation of national leader. From this floor, she has spoken out courageously and led boldly at times that demanded both. Since the tragic events of 1 year ago, Congresswoman Giffords has become an inspiring symbol of determination and courage to millions of Americans. She has brought the word ``dignity'' to new heights by her courage. Congresswoman Giffords' message of bipartisanship and civility is one that all in Washington and in the Nation should honor and emulate. As Gabby said in her video, which moved us all so much this weekend, we can do so much more by working together. In that vein, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the courtesies extended to enable this extraordinary ceremony to take place today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permission, I would like to acknowledge Gabby's mother, who is with us today, Gloria, and her father, Spencer, who is watching from Tucson. We thank you. And we thank Commander Mark Kelly, a hero in his own right as an astronaut and a commander of a mission, but also our personal hero, for the care and love that he has given to Gabby over this past year--oh, and before that, to help make her, as Gloria and Spencer have, the person that she is. I think all of our colleagues join in thanking you, Gabby, for the honor of calling you colleague and wishing you and Mark much happiness and success. You will be missed in the House of Representatives, but your legacy in this Congress and your leadership in our Nation will certainly endure. So thank you for being who you are, for lifting our country at a very important and sad time. We wish you, again, much success. With great gratitude, admiration, and affection, we salute you, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, one last time. It is now my privilege to yield the floor to the distinguished majority leader of the House, the gentleman from Virginia, Representative Cantor.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the leader. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield to Gabby's friend, the distinguished minority whip of the House, the gentleman from Maryland, Congressman Hoyer.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I know that every Member in the House would like to associate himself or herself with the remarks of our distinguished majority leader and Democratic whip, especially with regard to Gabby, of course, but also Pia. It is something that every day we have the Chaplain or the guest chaplain come to the floor and ask God's blessing on this House. As Mr. Hoyer said, one of those blessings to us has certainly been the leadership and the life and service that will continue for many years to come of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. We focus on her. She is our friend. We look at her remarkable recovery with great pride. She also carries in her need for recovery the sorrow of so many others who lost their lives today. So the apparent physical recovery that we see is something even more than we could ever imagine for the challenge that Congresswoman Giffords has faced. God gave her a very special mission. He gave it to Gabby Giffords because he knew she could carry that burden because he has blessed her with so many, many gifts and a very loving family to make her the person that she is. How fortunate we have all been to be part of her life until now and hopefully for a long time to come. Now, it is with very mixed emotions, Mr. Speaker, that I yield to Gabby's very good and close friend. I say ``mixed emotions'' because we want her to stay with us, but, intellectually, we know that Gabby has made the right decision. Hopefully, it will be liberating for her in many ways but that she goes with knowing the close ties we all feel personally to her. So, Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield the floor now to a very close friend of Gabby, a leader in this House, the gentlelady from Florida, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in appreciation, once again, for your courtesies enabling this to happen, I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life, leadership, and legacy of our former colleague and a friend of many in this house, Congressman Ed Jenkins. My colleague, John Lewis, has brought many of us together on this floor or in other public statements to say what an honor it was to serve with Eddie Jenkins, how much we all learned from him. The humor as well as the intellect he brought to his work was definitely, definitely an asset to the work of the Congress. Eddie Jenkins was a proud son of Georgia. If you heard him say it, you would agree, a self-described country lawyer from Jasper, a public servant dedicated to his constituents, to advancing the interests, hopes, and aspirations of his neighbors down there in Georgia, and in securing future prosperity for all and opportunity for all Americans. It must be a true honor for Congressman Jenkins and his family that this tribute has been organized and led by the conscience of the Congress, a man of extraordinary leadership and character and a fellow representative from the State of Georgia, Congressman John Lewis. Congressman Jenkins will long be remembered as a leader willing to work across the aisle, negotiate and build coalitions on behalf of the greater good. He will be remembered in textile mills across the South as a champion of the industry, a defender of good-paying jobs for local workers in small towns and communities across the region for small businesses. He will be remembered as a champion of the Ways and Means Committee for his expertise on the Tax Code, for his wisdom and leadership, with the respect he earned even when his colleagues disagreed with him. And he will be remembered for his legendary tough questioning during the Iran-Contra hearings, a scene that reflected and embodies his strong will, deep character, and core principles--his pursuit of the truth, his commitment to transparency and accountability, and his firm belief in the sanctity of the rule of law. Congressman Jenkins served his community and our country as a lawyer and a congressional staffer, in the Coast Guard, and as a Member of the House of Representatives. He'll be missed by his friends in Congress, by his friends he served in Georgia, by his neighbors, and loved ones. We only hope that it is some comfort to his wife of 51 years, Jo; his daughters, Janice and Amy; his brothers, sisters, grandsons, and his entire family that so many share grief at this sad time. Thank you, Mr. Jenkins, for a life of service to the Congress and the country. Thank you, Mr. Lewis, for providing this opportunity for us to honor a person we were proud to call a colleague and friend.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, with the passing of Walter Johnson, the working men and women of San Francisco have lost an extraordinary champion and a powerful advocate; our nation has lost a strong voice for economic justice. Many of us in Congress were proud to call him a friend. Walter Johnson was a giant in the labor movement, who dedicated his life to advancing and expanding the rights of workers--the cornerstones of a thriving middle class. He championed fair pay for a full day's work, equal rights and protection in the workplace, and social justice and opportunity for all. Walter's imprint can be seen across our city, whether in better conditions for home care workers, greater access to health care, more affordable housing options for families, or increased diversity at San Francisco City College. Born on April 22, 1924, in Amenia, North Dakota, Walter arrived in San Francisco following three years of service in the United States Army during World War II. While working as an appliance salesman for Sears, he joined the Retail Clerks Union, where he was elected President in 1958, and in 1964 was elected Executive Officer, the top position in his local. Under Walter's leadership, the rights of women, people of color, and gay people working in retail were protected. His expert guidance resulted in his subsequent re-election over the next 11 years. Walter was elected Secretary-Treasurer of the San Francisco Labor Council in 1985 and held that post until he retired in 2004. From that powerful perch, he fought for workers' benefits, health care reform, and workplace equality. Walter educated, enlightened and mobilized union members to fight the unjust and unfair practices that existed in the workplace. He had a special talent for negotiation, helping to settle many contentious disputes. Walter possessed unflinching moral courage. He spoke out against the Vietnam War, even though it was supported by the AFL-CIO national leadership. He was one of the first labor leaders to give unconditional support to the gay rights movement. Even after his retirement, he was active in labor demonstrations, where he walked picket lines and was arrested at sit-ins. A humanitarian, Walter's friendships extended far beyond the labor community. He was known by all, from the owner of the corner store to the homeless person on the street. His friends were blessed by his generous nature, his wry sense of humor, and his penchant for storytelling. He was rarely without a personal anecdote or a footnote from history. Walter Johnson's life was a story of extraordinary courage, leadership, and service to the labor community and the people of San Francisco. His legacy will live on in our continued pursuit of fairness and workers' rights in our city and across the country. We hope it is a comfort to Walter's son Lawrence, his daughter Emily Davis, his grandchildren and a multitude of friends and loved ones, that so many share their grief and are praying for them at this sad time.