Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank you, because one thing that we must make sure they know is that this is not tax reform. It is not a tax cut unless you are in the top 2 percent or a corporation. But if you are a middle class American or a working family in our country, you are susceptible to an increase in what you pay in taxes. It is just not fair. I thank Mr. Garamendi for his relentless leadership.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to recognize Mr. Yarmuth's extraordinary leadership as the ranking member on the Budget Committee. As we all know, budget should be a statement of our national values. What is important to us as a nation should be reflected in how we allocate our resources. Again, it is a statement of values, and who better to manage all of that in this Congress of the United States than Mr. Yarmuth, who brings his values and his heartland priorities to the budget process, and I thank him for the leadership he has provided. Sadly though, I rise in opposition to what the Republicans have proposed which is a devastating Republican budget. The first step in the GOP's dangerous plan to fast track their immoral tax framework is to hand trillions of dollars to the wealthy while raising taxes on working American families. The Republican budget and tax plan cruelly rig an unfair system even further against hardworking Americans. It cuts a raw deal for families in every corner of our country. Democrats have a better deal, better jobs, better pay, better future. But right here, before our eyes in this House, Republicans are replacing the great American ladders of opportunity with the silver spoons of plutocracy and aristocracy. Their agenda raises taxes on the middle class. That is a fact. Tens of millions of middle class families will pay higher taxes, including a heavier burden for State and local taxes. It might be interesting to our distinguished colleague, Mr. Scalise-- and isn't it a joy to see him in debate on the floor--in his State of Louisiana, 458,000 people will pay an average of nearly $7,000 more by losing their deduction. And Congresswoman Black, from the great State of Tennessee, in her State, 573,960 people will lose their deduction, around $5,600 a filer. Not only that, if that isn't bad enough for assaulting the dream of homeownership in our country by attacking the deduction, this plan that the Republicans propose has been estimated to reduce the value of people's homes by 10 percent. You not only are paying more money in order to give a tax break to the wealthy and to big corporations, you are reducing the value of your home, and, by the way, your neighbors' homes as well. So with all of the unfairness in it, the one that is most understandable to people directly is how it affects them. And in that case, 44 million Americans will pay more because of what the Republicans have in their plan. So it raises taxes on middle class, particularly with the State and local tax deduction removed. And by the way--another by the way--if you are a corporation, your deduction is not removed, just if you are an individual filer, so again, an advantage to corporate America at the expense of America's working families. Next, it borrows trillions from the future to give tax cuts to the wealthiest. Eighty percent of the tax cuts in this Republican proposal goes to the wealthiest 1 percent; 80 percent goes to the wealthiest 1 percent at the expense of America's working families and children. The budget on the floor today reveals the true cruelty behind the Republican's tax plan. What words would be best to use it? It is looting the middle class, massive looting of the middle class; rip-off of the middle class, because there are many middle class people. So you take some money from all of those middle class people and those who aspire to it so that you can give a lot of money to the few. That is a big sucking up of assets from the middle class to the wealthy. That is what they are here for. It is in their DNA: trickle- down economics. It is in their DNA. That is what the Republicans come here to do, and that causes a deep addition to the national debt. They are supposed to be deficit hawks, but I think they have become an endangered species because they don't seem to care that, with the cuts that they are taking, the tax breaks they are giving to corporate and wealthy America will cost over $2 trillion--not counting service on the national debt which would take it closer to $3 trillion additional. That is a very hard road to come back from. And as our distinguished ranking member has pointed out, the opportunity cost in the budget, whether it is a trillion dollars from Medicaid, half a trillion dollars from Medicare, funds taken from education, the seed corn of America's preeminence in the world. Why? To give a tax cut to the high end. And they will say: Oh, well, the growth will come from this. We will pay for that. It never has; never has. Don't take it from me. Bruce Bartlett, who was one of the orchestrators of the supply-side economics said: We never said it paid for itself. Anyone who says it does, it is not true. It is nonsense. He went even further to call it BS. As I said, it ransacks Medicare and Medicaid, adding trillions to the debt in tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy, looting the middle class, shaking down the middle class, ripping off the middle class, increasing the taxes of the middle class. It devastates vital investments, as our distinguished ranking member said, in good-paying jobs with higher wages for working families, the education of our children, the health of our working families. It really is a good example of what they say that Medicare should wither on the vine. In keeping with their trickle-down economics, Medicare should wither on the vine because they will take half a trillion dollars from Medicare in their budget that will follow. So Republicans will harm veterans, rural America, seniors, and children, again, all in the name of fast-tracking trillion-dollar tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent. What more do you need to know? Eighty percent goes to the wealthiest 1 percent. Again and again on the floor, the Republicans have tried to tilt the playing field against hardworking families. This is really quite remarkable though. This is a great transformative moment for America where we can reject this assault on the middle class, this addition to the national debt, and instead, say: Let's go to the table and work in a bipartisan way to truly reform our Tax Code so that we can be competitive in the world; so that families can thrive, and that they can have the deductions that are fair for them and needed, and not taken away from them, but not taken away from corporate America. So we stand ready to go in a bipartisan way to work to do this. Any tax cuts, because this isn't just tax cuts to the rich--that is not tax reform--any tax cuts, any agenda like that has to be bipartisan in order for it to be sustainable. So let's come to our senses here. Common sense says--well, mathematics says, if you take a lot of money from many people to give it to a few, you are exacerbating the disparity of opportunity equity income in our country. This is the wrong thing to do. It is not what our values are about. It is really a shame that they would even bring such a document to the floor. Anybody who lives in a district where their deductions, the tax deductions for State and local taxes, are taken away from individual filers, but not for corporations, as the bill determines, to the tune-- and I can read you all of the statistics across the country about how devastating this is--as our own Governor said: How could they do that to our State or any State without the department of finance of our States saying: Wait a minute. Understand what this does to the economy of our State. Understand what this does to our individual filers in our State. Who said that this document that came over from the Senate should have such a devastating impact on States and Members coming to the floor and endorsing it. Some say: Oh, I am just voting for the budget, but it really isn't what it--no. No. You are putting your name next to taking the deduction of homeownership and of State and local taxes away from your constituents. They are going to know that. I would rather you reject this. We don't want a political argument. We want to protect the American people. That is why I hope everyone here would come down in favor of the middle class and reject this assault, this rip-off, this shakedown of the middle class that the Republicans have on the floor.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues Congressman Thompson and Congressman Huffman in paying tribute to the first responders who responded to the fires in northern California and, indeed, in southern California as well. The spirit of our community is so magnificent seeing people come together to help each other. I salute our colleague Mike Thompson, who so much of his district was like an inferno, but much of his district is still thriving and one group helping another, and Mr. Huffman there, side by side with him, the whole time. This is very tragic. The loss of life is heartbreaking, the loss of livelihood is devastating, and the loss of homes, of course, takes a while to replace. We have seen other natural disasters in the rest of the country, in Harvey and Irma and Maria and Nate, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Texas, and Louisiana. So many of the people of our country devastated in a short period of time. So, in times of natural disaster, it is very important for the Federal Government to honor its social compact with the American people and to be there for them. I look forward to working in a bipartisan way for us to have the resources for FEMA to do its job and for the SBA to do its job to help businesses and homeowners recover their losses. And, again, pray; our hearts and prayers are with the families of those who lost their loved ones, their livelihoods, and some who are still in need of recovery. Republicans' Devastating Tax Cut Plan

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the devastating tax cut plan that the Republicans are putting forth. If you are in the middle class, you will most likely be having your taxes increased. If you have a family member on Medicare or Medicaid, you will be, most likely, devastated by the impact of this. This is a bill that the Republicans are putting forth that will add trillions of dollars to the national debt while they sing the praises of fiscal responsibility. The fiscal hawks have become an endangered species. No longer are they there to say: We are not going to borrow from our future in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country. Indeed, 80 percent of the Trump-GOP tax framework, the framework net tax cuts go to the top 1 percent of Americans. The top 1 percent of Americans get 80 percent of the Trump-GOP framework net tax cuts. As they increase the deficit, anyone who might be haunted by the thought that, well, we better cut someplace, where do you think they are going to go? They will devastate Medicare. They will devastate Medicaid. What does that mean in the lives of the American people? It means that middle class families in our country will be subsidizing tax cuts for the wealthiest families and wealthiest corporations in our country. This is completely wrong. It will also have a devastating impact on our budget priorities. In our budget priorities, our budget should be a statement of our national values. What is important to us as a country should reflect what is in the budget: investments in education so that children and families can reach their aspirations, so that communities can reach their economic success, so that America continues to be number one globally, competitively, and so that we, again, have the resources to invest in science and technology and our national security to keep America number one. Infrastructure, so talked about, infrastructure--build, build, build: Build across America roads, bridges, broadband. Build water systems and the rest, all of the needs that we have. Build the human infrastructure of America by investing in education and healthcare and the rest. Build our democracy by making sure that our democratic process has the resources necessary to be conducted in a way where every person's vote is counted as cast. So all of this is connected to governance, and all of this is harmed by the assault on our budget that this tax proposal will present. Middle class taxes will increase. Middle-income families will pay more. Tens of millions of middle class families will pay higher taxes. One of the ways they will is because of the great idea the Republicans have to stop the deduction for State and local taxes. This is a big hit on middle class families in our country. It steals trillions of dollars, borrows from the future and from our children's future to give tax cuts to the wealthiest. Eighty percent of the GOP tax cuts go to the wealthiest 1 percent at the expense of our children and working families and our country's future. It would devastate Medicare and Medicaid. After adding trillions to the deficit, the GOP will use the deficits to justify destroying Medicare and Medicaid. And they are on it. They are already, in the bill, saying that they are going to means test Medicare. It is in keeping with their theory that Medicare should wither on the vine. Democrats are for A Better Deal, for real bipartisan tax reform. Any business will tell you that what they want in tax reform is some level of certainty that this is going to last for a while. The only way to do that is to have bipartisanship at the table. Go to the table. What will create growth? What will create good paying jobs? What will reduce the debt? This bill does exactly the worst. Don't let them tell you that, even though they are adding trillions of dollars to the debt, that is going to be paid for by economic growth. It has never happened. Trickle-down economics, President Bush tried that. It was tried before. It has never done that. It has never paid for itself. In fact, it has only increased the national debt. In that regard, Bruce Bartlett, who was an economist in the Reagan years as well as worked very closely with Jack Kemp in supply side economics as an advocate for supply side economics, said: We never said it would pay for itself. Anybody who tells you that these additions to the deficit will pay for themselves by growth, it is not true, it is nonsense, and, he said, BS. Forgive me, Mr. Speaker. I am just quoting. I am just saying what he said. So this is a moment of truth for our country. What are our values? How are they reflected in our budget? How do we grow the economy in a way that increases the paychecks of America's working families so that they have consumer confidence? they spend? they inject demand into the economy? they create jobs? they bring revenue to the Treasury? How is it a good idea to cut education in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country? Nothing brings more money to the Treasury than investments in education, early childhood, K-12, higher ed, postgrad, lifetime learning for our workers. So, with stiff competition, mind you, having tax cuts which will steal from our budget investments in education is, with stiff competition, one of the worst ideas that the Republicans have to offer. But this is something that people should be alerted to, forgetting the policy and all the rest of it, what it means in your life. Most likely, middle class family, you will pay more taxes. If you have a family member who is dependent on long-term healthcare, long- term care, whether in a nursing home or at home, most likely you will pay a price. If you have a family member who is on Medicare or if you are, Social Security disability, you will be affected by it. The President said in his campaign the system is rigged. This is the rigging of the rig. This is taking the rig to a step that is almost impossible for us to return from. They take us down this road to ruin. They take us down this path to severe increase in the national debt to the tune of trillions of dollars, not even counting the debt service on it, at the cost of investments in our future, in our children, in our families, in fairness in our economy, in opportunity for America. This is something that must be stopped, and we can start by stopping the assault on the State and local taxes deduction. Let's hold Members of Congress accountable for what they do that affects your pocketbook and your future. We will be continuing this conversation for awhile, and we will have charts and the rest to visually demonstrate what this is. Governance is about how you raise the money and how you invest it, and this is the dialogue that our country needs to hear very clearly for not only the policy aspects of it, but the personal consequences in their lives. This is a very bad deal for the American people, for middle class families. Democrats want A Better Deal, better jobs, better pay, better future, and, by the way, to do this in a very bipartisan way.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his great leadership as the ranking member on the Budget Committee in the House, and I thank all of the members of the Budget Committee for their great work to make the budget that was proposed earlier, the Yarmuth budget, a statement of our values. That is exactly what a budget should be. A Federal budget should be a statement of our national values, and what is important to us as a country should be reflected in the priorities that we place into that budget. The budget before us, proposed by the Republicans, is just the opposite of that. It is accompanied by a tax proposal that they put in, one of the biggest transfers of wealth to the wealthiest people in our country in our country's history. Every time they do it, they make it worse. I let you be the judge: Is a statement of our national values to cut a trillion dollars from Medicaid, cap and take Medicaid down a bad path, in order to give tax cuts to the richest people in our country? Is it a statement of our values to take a half trillion dollars out of Medicare to give a tax cut to the wealthiest people in our country? Our distinguished ranking member has listed some of the things that would be cut if we went down this unfortunate path posed by our colleagues on the other side. This is a budget that steals from the middle class. It steals hundreds of billions of dollars from critical job-creating, wage- increasing investments, infrastructure, job training, and clean energy. It harms veterans, it cuts education, it abandons rural America, and it guts education. This is really a mystery to me. When you cut education, with the stiff competition we have, this is one of the worst budget decisions that you have made. Nothing brings more money to the Treasury than investing in education: early childhood, K-12, higher education, postgraduate, and lifetime learning for our workers. That is how you grow the economy. That is how you bring money to the Treasury, and not by cutting it in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country. Is it a statement of values to cut education so that you have a tax cut that benefits 80 percent? I know you don't want the public to hear this, and I can understand why. How could it be a statement of the values of the American people to cut the education of our children in order to have a tax cut where 80 percent of it benefits the top 1 percent of people in our country? It is just not right. As they do that, the deficit hawks, who seem to be an endangered species on the Republican side of the aisle these days, are adding close to $2.4 trillion to the deficit, not counting debt service or interest on that national debt. Then they say: Oh, that is okay; we need to increase the national debt by trillions of dollars so that we can give tax cuts. Where do the tax cuts go? $2.6 trillion goes to corporate America. Guess what happens to the middle class. There are $470 billion in tax increases to the middle class, about a half trillion dollars in increases to the middle class, $2.5 trillion in tax cuts for corporate America. Again, it is adding so much to the deficit. Now they say: Oh, trickle-down economics is going to pay its own way. We will get that money back. Not so. It never happens. Nonsense. But don't take it from me. No less a figure than Bruce Bartlett, who worked for Congressman Jack Kemp, a real supporter of supply-side economics--and, as was said, supply-side turn into trickle-down, et cetera. As a proponent of supply-side economics, he said: We never said it would pay for itself. We just advocate it as an economic approach. But anyone who says, and this is from him, that the whole supply-side dynamic scoring pays for itself--part of this argument--is all nonsense. It is not true. He went on to say that it was bull--you finish the sentence. So, here we are at a place where we can increase the deficit, decrease job creation, hurt the middle class, benefit the top 1 percent, and add to the national debt in historic proportions that will be very hard to collect from deficit hawks--if any of you exist over there. Instead, we have an opportunity today for a better deal for the American people--better jobs, better pay, better wages, and a better future--where we lower costs for America's working families and middle class families, and where we prepare them with the tools for the economy of the 21st century. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, the chair of the Bourbon Caucus, for his great leadership in bringing a better budget that is a statement of our national values, that supports American workers with responsible tax reform, calls for parity between defense and nondefense, and strengthens the ACA and protects Medicare. Every time the Republicans come to the floor and try to stack the deck even further for their wealthy friends, we have to have this conversation. Democrats will fight these tax cuts and this unfortunate, deceptive budget that they have on the floor. I urge my colleagues to start by voting ``no'' today and to continue the conversation with the American people to fight this unfortunate path they want to take us down: the road to ruin. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I join you in thanking God for the return of our colleague, Steve Scalise, and to have him do so in such a strong way. You were brief, Mr. Speaker, I will be even briefer. Thank God, our prayers are answered. I take great pride in Steve because we are both Italian Americans, and I think that is a source of some of his strength. I, too, want to say how proud we are of Jennifer, Harrison, and Madison, of your staff, and of our first responders--our Capitol Police--who took such good care of you. But if it is, as you said, an attack on you is an attack on all, then we all came through this magnificently because of your strength. So it is the power of Steve Scalise. The day we came to the floor when you weren't here, we were all Team Scalise. Today we are Team Scalise. Thank you for being so wonderful. God bless you.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I associate myself with the concerns expressed by Congresswoman Jackson Lee about those who have been affected by the hurricanes. They need not only our compassion but our help as soon as possible. I thank Congresswoman Jackson Lee for her leadership. I also associate myself with the remarks of others who have talked about the discharge petition here. This discharge petition will not only discharge a bill, it will discharge the realization of hopes and dreams and aspirations of so many hundreds of thousands of young people in our country. Just to put it in historic perspective, we did pass a Dream Act in 2010, in the House of Representatives. We couldn't pass it in the Senate, because it required 60 votes, but it did receive a majority of the vote in the Senate. President Obama, as people know, issued an executive order. President Trump has rescinded that, but he said he would sign the Dream Act if it came to his desk. So we are asking our Republican colleagues to join us in this bipartisan legislation. Just to put it in historical perspective, the President said: I can't act. Congress must act. But even when Congress acted, President Reagan said: You didn't go far enough. So he instituted a Family Fairness initiative, which protected many more people than Congress did. President George Herbert Walker Bush continued that leadership and that courage, as did President Clinton; President George W. Bush, one of the best Presidents we have ever had in terms of his advocacy for newcomers to our country, realizing that they make America more American by invigorating our country with hope, aspirations, and dreams; and President Obama, of course, a great President in this regard as well. So this is the first President we have had who has put doubt as to whether we respect the contribution of newcomers to our country. He has said he would sign this bill. We trust his word. We just need our Republican colleagues to join in the discharge petition, and to appeal to the Speaker, with or without a discharge petition, take the initiative, take the lead, make America more American by unleashing the power and the patriotism of our DREAMers.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise to pay tribute to a cherished member of my staff, my chief of staff, Nadeam Elshami. My office, my colleagues, indeed, the entire Democratic Caucus, has benefited from the sharp strategic insight, steady judgment, and exceptional character and integrity of Nadeam Elshami. Born in Nashville, spent some time in Egypt, earning his college degree in Indiana, Nadeam followed the love of his life, Stacy, to Washington, D.C. Here, 25 years ago, Nadeam found a job in the Senate mailroom. Now, he departs as a trusted senior adviser who holds one of the top positions on Capitol Hill, who holds the respect of Members on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the Capitol, and, indeed, even down Pennsylvania Avenue. Nadeam has been an invaluable asset in every office he has served: for Senator Barbara Boxer; for Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin; proudly, in our House, for Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky; and for me, in my office, where he has worked for 10 years. We are deeply grateful for Nadeam's wise counsel, his skill as a manager, and his grace under pressure in some of the most high-stakes matters to come before the Congress and the American people. He has played a vital role in improving the lives of America's working families. He has distinguished himself with the respect that Members have for his judgment, discretion, and ability. In conclusion, Nadeam's exceptional service entailed sacrifice, not only from him, but from his beautiful family. We are especially grateful to Nadeam for the patience, love, and support of his wife, Stacy, who is here with us today. Thank you, Stacy. I hope that all the spouses of our staff recognize that recognition for Stacy, which applies to them, as well. And his children, Jena, Noah, and Layla. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to please join me in thanking my chief of staff, a man who has served the United States Congress with honor and distinction for more than 25 years: Nadeam Elshami.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect California DREAMers like Monica, a college student who has started her own business.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, we recognize Senator Dole, a patriot whose life and career embody superior public service. The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest award we can bestow. We confer this honor to men and women who grace our nation with exceptional achievements and contributions. Senator Bob Dole is a leader of great integrity, a public servant of deep dignity and an American hero of extraordinary courage. Before the people of Kansas brought him to Capitol Hill, Bob Dole fought for our country in the mountains of central Italy during the Second World War. For his courage and immense sacrifice, he was awarded two Purple Hearts and the Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster for Valor. Bob's bravery was not limited to the battlefield. When he came to Congress, he fought relentlessly to ensure that every person in uniform would receive the care they needed upon coming home. It is a special source of pride that Bob Dole first came to Washington to serve in the House of Representatives. There, as a proud Representative of western Kansas, he proved his mettle as a tenacious fighter for American families and American values. Later, in the Senate, as Majority Leader, he continued to champion the vital causes central to our identity and our ideals as Americans. Senator Dole was a champion for justice, battling to expand the civil rights of every American during the 1960s. He was a champion for working families, reaching across the aisle to expand eligibility for food stamps. He was a champion for equality, fighting for passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. After he left Capitol Hill, he continued the fight. He has advocated tirelessly on behalf of veterans, disabled Americans and families struggling with hunger and poverty in every part of the world. Twenty years ago, President Clinton awarded the Senator our nation's other highest civilian honor: The Presidential Medal of Freedom. Receiving this award, he said, ``Our challenge is not to question American ideals or replace them, but to act worthy of them.'' Senator Bob Dole: for a lifetime spent defending, advancing and exemplifying our proudest American ideals, we are grateful. This Congress thanks you. We send our warmest congratulations to your incredible wife Elizabeth--a fierce champion for our hidden heroes: our military caregivers--and to the entire Dole family.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise with pride today to join my beloved city in recognizing the 40th Anniversary of Reverend Dr. Amos C. Brown as the pastor of the Third Baptist Church of San Francisco and honoring his lifetime of moral leadership, political activism and spiritual guidance. Born and raised in Jackson, Mississippi, Reverend Brown's history of activism and his deep involvement in the civil rights movement began at an early age. He was only a teenager when he assumed leadership of his local NAACP chapter and was driven cross-country to San Francisco by activist Medgar Evers to meet the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Later, Brown attended Morehouse College where he was hand-selected by King as one of his eight students, inspiring him to seek a lifetime of service on behalf of civil rights and social justice. He was arrested together with Dr. King during a lunch counter sit-in Atlanta department store, and became one of the fearless Freedom Riders in 1961. Brown received both a Mastery of Divinity from Crozer Theological Seminary and a Doctor of Ministry from United Theological Seminary. Our city was fortunate to welcome the Pastor and his beloved wife Jane Smith Brown in 1976, when they made San Francisco their home and the Third Baptist Church their place of worship and leadership. Brown's vision of the church as a holy place of prayer, and also a place of civic engagement and social action, transformed the Third Baptist Church into a congregation at the forefront of the fight for civil rights. His unwavering belief in future generations drove the church to establish a summer school program, an after-school academic enrichment program, ``Back on Track'', and the Charles A. Tindley Academy of Music. Brown's influence also extended beyond his local community when the church sponsored 80 children from Tanzania to receive heart surgery in the United States, and his congregation sponsored more African refugees than any other local congregation in the nation. This global reach and visionary leadership was recognized when Brown was appointed as a delegate to the 2001 United Nations Conference on Race and Intolerance in Durban, South Africa, representing the National Board of the NAACP. Closer to home, Brown was awarded the Martin Luther King Jr. Ministerial Award for outstanding leadership and contributions to the Black Church in America and he was inducted into the International Hall of Fame of the King International Chapel at Morehouse College. He has served as the president of the NAACP Branch in San Francisco, as a San Francisco Community College Trustee and as a San Francisco County Supervisor. A passionate fighter and voice for the most vulnerable in our community, Reverend Amos Brown has served as a source of change, strength and faith for 40 years. I congratulate him, along with his wife Jane and his children Amos C. Brown Jr., David Josephus and Kizzie Marie, on this milestone celebration and extend my best wishes as he continues to lead and inspire our community.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I join our colleague in saluting the committee for bringing this bipartisan legislation to the floor--so many issues that the committee has to deal with. I know that full well as a previous ranking member. I know that we all agree that every chance we get we want to salute the patriotic men and women of the intelligence community for their ceaseless heroism and unblinking vigilance to keep the American people safe. I thank them for all they do for force protection and conflict prevention. The quiet professionals of the U.S. intelligence community work every day, again, to keep this country safe and our leaders informed. Respect for their work is essential. I thank Ranking Member Schiff and members of the committee--Mr. Schiff, for his leadership, and commend all the members of the committee for their dedication to those same goals. I am sorry that this bill is coming up under a closed rule so that Members cannot offer amendments. One such amendment might be about an independent commission. It is the judgment of the intelligence community, as expressed in the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a multifaceted active-measures campaign to sow discord in our political process and help one Presidential candidate and hurt the other. For this reason, we continue to ask for an outside, independent commission to look forward on how to prevent Russia and others from meddling in our election system again. The Swalwell-Cummings legislation to establish that commission has 200 bipartisan cosponsors. I also want to salute our Homeland Security Committee ranking member, Bennie Thompson, for his leadership to strengthen the preparedness of the election infrastructure of the United States to identify and withstand a foreign attack. Our election systems are part of the critical infrastructure of our country, some of the most critical infrastructure of our democracy itself. We must protect it. The United States must reject foreign interference in our elections, no matter which party it helps or which party it hurts. Our oath of office is to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Working with the intelligence community to better ensure the integrity of our elections is vital to that goal. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bipartisan legislation and salute the members of the committee. I especially want to acknowledge the tremendous leadership of our ranking member, Mr. Schiff from California.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from New York, the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, for yielding, and more importantly, for her great leadership to advance the values of our country in allocation of resources. And I always admire the work of Mr. Frelinghuysen, our distinguished chairman, as well. We may have a matter of disagreement here today, though. Mr. Chair, all of us, Members of Congress, all elected officials, people who serve in any office, take a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution, and that is an oath to protect the American people. Democrats, indeed all Americans, believe in a strong national defense. We believe in strong investments in our defense and in our brave men and women in uniform, in particular. But far from strengthening our security, the falsely inflated numbers in this spending bill will create uncertainty for our military and hollow out America's communities at home. We face serious threats in the world. We know that. Those threats demand serious consideration in Congress. We should be making serious decisions about our national security mission. What is our mission? What are the resources that we need? We don't want to spend more than we need, but we don't want to spend less, and we should not be posturing in the Defense bill with false numbers and no real answers about the mission that these dollars would fund. We do not give certainty to our defense or confidence to our troops when we legislate with phony numbers when we refuse to make honest choices about our Defense budget. Instead of giving certainty to our heroes in uniform, this bill would breach the sequester spending limit by more than $70 billion, forcing a mandatory 13 percent cut to all Defense accounts. These phony numbers in this bill not only do violence to our Defense budget, they starve the strength of America by ransacking our domestic investments. In order to be the strongest possible America, we must measure our strength not only in our military might, but in the health, education, and well-being of the American people. And that is what the problem is, that we are stealing from the domestic budget with phony numbers for the Defense budget, which will be because of the sequester cut to the Defense accounts by 13 percent as we starve our domestic investments. Besides the direct danger this bill poses to our military, it is laden with poison pills. It would squander billions of taxpayer dollars on President Trump's immoral, ineffective, and expensive border wall. The President said, during the campaign, he said: ``I promise a wall.'' No. He promised a wall that Mexico would pay for. He said it would cost $4 billion to $6 billion. The fact is it could cost as much as $30 billion, $40 billion, and he wants a down payment for that wall in this bill--one poison pill. It also eliminates ARPA-E, the advanced energy research vital to our energy independence and to our national security to keep America the innovation superpower of the 21st century. Democrats will continue to demand real leadership to strengthen our national defense. Mr. Chair, on this day, July 26, 1948, President Harry Truman signed the executive order desegregating the U.S. military. How great that was for America. How great it is for our country to benefit from the service of so many people who had been serving all along but now with dignity and respect, which was justified. So how sad it is on this same day that the President of the United States, 69 years ago, recognized the value of respecting our men and women in uniform, that the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, fired 15,000 courageous men and women in uniform in a vile, hateful tweet. His actions regarding transgenders in the military were unworthy of their bravery and unworthy of the American people. Let us be thankful for the blessings of all of our men and women in uniform, our veterans who have served us, and our military families to whom we owe so much. Their courage, their service and leadership, and their sacrifice are what truly makes us the land of the free and the home of the brave, and it insists that we be serious and real and evidence-based as we make decisions about how we invest in the security of our country. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I commend my distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services Committee for her brilliant leadership, for her bipartisanship, and for always trying to find a way to help America's consumers and protect America's taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I am very sad today because of what is happening on both sides of the Capitol. The cruelty, carelessness, and contempt Republicans are showing for working families boggles the mind. Now, Senate Republicans are careening toward shattering the healthcare of millions of Americans, with no regard or appreciation for the consequence. Every chance they get, they stack the deck against America's working families. Here, on this side of the Capitol, Republicans are stacking the deck even further against America's working families by seeking to deny those families their fundamental right to obtain justice in court. Eight years ago, unchecked recklessness on Wall Street ignited a financial meltdown that devastated families across the country. Democrats proudly took bold action and passed Dodd-Frank, the strongest set of consumer financial protections in history. But today, House Republicans are once again trying to destroy those protections for America's consumers. Last month, Republicans passed what we called the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, the Dodd-Frank repeal, which was a giveaway to the financial industry at the expense of hardworking families. Republicans are waging a war on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a bureau that has returned nearly $12 billion to 29 million wronged Americans, many of them seniors, veterans, and members of the Armed Forces. Forcing consumers into arbitration--indeed, forced arbitration--gives financial services providers a free pass to get away with abuse. It denies, again, veterans, servicemembers, and seniors justice against the predatory financial marketplace practices. Sadly, it reflects a Republican Party that works relentlessly to empower Wall Street and to rig the system against consumers. It denies them consumer class action. More than 800 years ago, the Magna Carta first laid out a basic right to justice as the foundation of a fair society. Even under a king, the Magna Carta declared, this much was owed the people: ``. . . to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.'' Every day, Americans take a similar solemn pledge: ``liberty and justice for all.'' Republicans' attack on consumers insult those pledges and deny Americans their justice. All the American people deserve a better deal than what they are getting from the Republicans in Congress. Democrats are going to fight back. We will fight to protect hardworking American consumers. We will fight to put leverage back into the hands of the American people. Who has the leverage? If I am a financial institution and I know that you have no leverage, that you cannot act in a class action way, you can just imagine what I have in store for you. But if I think you have leverage and you can act in a different way and not be forced into arbitration, I might have more respect for our financial relationship with each other. We will put the leverage back in the hands of the American people. We will fight this resolution. I call upon my Republican colleagues to join Democrats in voting ``no'' because this bill is an unfair and unjust bill. Who is it unfair to? America's working families, America's consumers, and America's taxpayers. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his extraordinary leadership as our ranking member on the Armed Services Committee. I thank him for his leadership in trying to help define what our security mission is so that we have the resources that are necessary to honor our oath of office to protect and defend. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Thornberry as well for his leadership in the defense of our country. The bipartisanship in defending our country is something that we value, and any interference with that is unfortunate. It takes a special kind of person, my colleagues, who steps forward to serve in the U.S. military. They are men and women of courage, of strength, and of patriotism, who shoulder the burden of defending our liberties so that the rest of us can live in security and freedom. We owe these heroes an immense debt, a solemn responsibility to do everything we can to defend those who are risking and giving their lives for the United States of America. The Defense bill before us today should be about honoring that responsibility, protecting those who protect our national security; instead, here we are considering a Republican amendment purpose-built to attack the health and dignity of thousands of men and women serving with honor and courage today. Make no mistake, the effect and the intent of this unjust and mean- spirited amendment is to ban patriotic Americans from serving our country. It is designed to drum transgender servicemembers out of the military. Instead of protecting the men and women who risk their lives to defend our freedoms, they are fighting to rip away the healthcare of thousands of brave servicemembers. The integration of openly transgender servicemembers into our Armed Forces is the unfinished work of the bipartisan--and I commend our colleagues--efforts to repeal the discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. I call upon my Republican colleagues that you immediately withdraw this cruel, discriminatory, and appalling amendment. If not, I call upon all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to defeat this amendment, prevent this assault on transgender servicemembers, and get us back to the subject at hand, which is the defense of our country, which the distinguished chairman, Mr. Thornberry, and ranking member have served this Congress and our country so well in doing.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in 1984, before the United Kingdom handed Hong Kong over to China, the Chinese Government promised ``a high degree of autonomy'' for the territory in the Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong: providing for an independent executive, legislature, and judiciary; ensuring the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion; prohibiting the central government from interfering into the affairs that Hong Kong administers on its own according to the Basic Law; and pledging a path to universal suffrage. In 1997, when the handover occurred, America was hopeful that the people of Hong Kong would achieve the free, democratic future they deserved. But 2 decades later, we see China's promise of ``one country, two systems'' is not being met. The Chinese have not honored that promise, and the British Government has ignored it. Since 2014's ``Umbrella Revolution,'' the people of Hong Kong have faced a barrage of unjust and harsh restrictions on their freedoms. Hong Kong's pro-Beijing government is slapping democratically elected opposition lawmakers with expensive lawsuits in a backhanded attempt to disqualify them from their seats. Peaceful activists are being rounded up and detained by the hundreds for exercising their right to protest the new government. Five booksellers were abducted, smuggled across the border to China and forced to confess--so-called confess--their so-called crimes on national television, simply because their employer sold books critical of Beijing. And, just this week, the democracy activists and heroes of the ``Umbrella Movement,'' Joshua Wong and Nathan Law, were arrested while peacefully protesting the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping, where they unfurled a banner in support of Liu Xiaobo. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend this body, especially our colleague, Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, for the resolution that he put forth earlier, a resolution that recognized Liu Xiaobo's contribution to democratic freedoms as a global hero, and urging the Chinese Government to allow him to seek medical care wherever, including in the United States. In mainland China, Mr. Speaker, the Chinese Government continues to jail journalists, human rights lawyers, those fighting to practice their own religion, and democracy activists at an alarming rate. And the Chinese Government is brutally trying to erase the religion, culture, and language of the Tibetan people. America has a moral duty to speak out in defense of the legitimate political aspirations of the people of Hong Kong. If we do not speak out for human rights in China because of economic concerns, then we lose all moral authority to talk about human rights in any other place in the world. As we mark this solemn 20th anniversary, we must stand up for all who are demanding the promises of ``one country, two systems'' be honored.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his extraordinary leadership on the committee, as well as the bipartisan nature of this legislation that Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel are bringing to the floor. I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished former chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan resolution reassures our friends, it rebuffs our foes, and it reminds the world that America's commitment to NATO's common defense pledge is ironclad. When President Truman signed the NATO Treaty nearly 70 years ago, he called the alliance, ``a long step toward permanent peace in the whole world.'' NATO has guaranteed the security of the American people and our allies for decades. Now some people don't remember what those decades were like, fighting the threat of communism. Article 5, the collective defense provision, is the core of that security guarantee. Article 5, as the gentlewoman just mentioned, was invoked only once: when America's allies joined in the fight against al-Qaida after the September 11 terrorist attacks on our country. I, like many of my colleagues, have traveled to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places and seen that our NATO partners have shed blood in the name of article 5 in our common fight against terrorism. Our commitment to article 5 is a commitment to brave men and women across the world who risk and give their lives for the NATO alliance. Previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have strongly and unambiguously stood by NATO and article 5. I was very sad, I will be very honest with you, my colleagues, when meeting with NATO leaders at the alliance's headquarters in Brussels, a building dedicated to the victims of the 9/11 attacks, President Trump refused to clearly and unequivocally reassure our NATO partners that he would honor article 5. We in this Congress of the United States, acting in a bipartisan way, want to remove all doubt that the U.S. commitment to the principles of a mutual defense embodied by NATO are ironclad. I keep using that word. Every day, Putin searches for cracks in our NATO alliance. We must convey to him that this alliance is ironclad. And now, just on another related subject, it is about our national security. While we are glad to be passing this resolution affirming America's commitment to article 5, the bipartisan bill sanctioning Russia languishes in the House. While the White House caters to Putin, Congress must hold Russia accountable for its actions by passing the Iran-Russia sanctions bill. It passed the Senate 98-2--98-2--strong bipartisan support for a bill that contained the Iran and Russia sanctions. We can't go home for the Fourth of July without passing that legislation. It is my understanding it was just a blue slip problem that could be easily resolved. That is how it was characterized when the President of Ukraine said to us that they really need the Russian sanctions enforced and strengthened. Let us have the courage to stand up to those who menace the free world and stand by our partners in support of a peaceful, democratic, and free future for all. What we are doing today is very important. It is not just about a bill. It is not just about an agreement. It is about values. It is about security as a value, something we take an oath to protect and defend. This NATO agreement helps us do that, but we must also do what flows from it and say to the Russians, who are the point of NATO, you are going to have sanctions because of your aggression in Eastern Europe, and at the same time send that message to the Iranians. Mr. Speaker, I urge a very strong unanimous vote for this. This is something so bipartisan, so wonderful. It is a good day. It is a good bill. It gives us all hope. I urge our colleagues to vote ``aye'' and call upon the Speaker to bring the other bill to the floor. I hope our distinguished chair and ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee will be able to be part of bringing it to the floor very soon.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the bold and visionary leadership of Marcia D. Greenberger and Nancy Duff Campbell, co- founders and co-presidents of the National Women's Law Center (NWLC). Exceptional lawyers, shrewd strategists, and formidable coalition- builders, they retire after five decades on the frontlines of virtually every major advance for women and girls in this nation. One of Marcia and Duffy's greatest legacies is the persistent leadership of the National Women's Law Center, the legal advocacy organization they co-founded and co-directed--pioneering progress for women and girls at a moment of landmark new legal and legislative victories for women's rights. Under Marcia and Duffy's leadership, the NWLC grew into one of America's most formidable and effective organizations for advancing women's rights and opportunities. Guided by their leadership, the NWLC will continue to honor their founders through strategic, effective and groundbreaking advocacy for a new generation of women and girls. Beyond the Center, the many female, and male, advocates who have been mentored and supported by Marcia and Duffy over the years continue to carry forward their vision. Marcia's induction to the national Women's Hall of Fame at Seneca Falls, NY in 2015 was a fitting honor for an extraordinary person who has earned a place in the pantheon of champions for America's women. Duffy has been rightly honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for her ``efforts on behalf of America's children.'' These awards are just two of the many recognitions they have received for their leadership. It has been my honor to work with Marcia and Duffy for three decades and witness first hand their dedication and commitment. On behalf of their many friends in Congress, I commend Marcia D. Greenberger and Nancy Duff Campbell for lifetimes of transformational service for the women of this country and wish them well in all their future endeavors.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the distinguished Speaker in paying tribute to the brave men and women of the Capitol Police force, and also, in sadness, for the assault that was made on our colleagues and members of the staff. To my colleagues, you will hear me say something you have never heard me say before: I identify myself with the remarks of the Speaker. They were beautiful remarks, Mr. Speaker. Thank you so much for the sentiments that they represent. Thank you so much. Again, we are not one caucus or the other in this House today, but I can speak for each other in saying that we send our thoughts and prayers to our colleague, Steve Scalise. Personally, we have our Italian-American connection, so as soon as I heard his name, I was filled with concern, as I would be for anyone here, but we have that special connection. So our hopes and prayers-- and I said to the Speaker: ``I will be asking you every 5 minutes, `How is Steve coming along?' '' And also, for Zach Barth in Congressman Roger Williams' office; Matt Mika, who was a former staffer, and, of course, as the Speaker acknowledged, Crystal Griner and David Bailey. In acknowledging their sacrifice and how fortunate we all were that they were on the scene, because other lives would have probably been lost, I want us to remember that every single day the Capitol Police protect all of us, take risks for us. And while a day like this is a time where we can focus on it so sadly, it doesn't mean that other days aren't as challenging. I especially want to call attention to Detective John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut, who, almost 19 years ago, July 24, 1998, lost their lives protecting the Congress, the Capitol, but not just the Members of Congress, the staff, the press, and our visitors, people who come to see this Capitol, this great edifice to democracy known throughout the world. So they are protecting a great deal, and it is an attraction, and that makes it all the more risky. You may not know this, my colleagues, but every time I pray, which is very frequently, and certainly every Sunday, I pray for all of you, all of you together. In the earlier years, I used to pray for your happiness, for the fact that we would, working together, heed the words of President Kennedy in the closing of his inaugural address when he said: ``. . . God's work must truly be our own.'' How do we view what God's will is for us? How do we come together to give confidence to the American people? As our Founders intended, we would have our disagreements and we would debate them, and we would have confidence in our beliefs and humility to listen to others. But in more recent years, I have been praying not only for that, but for our safety because I, above anyone in here, and I can say that quite clearly, have been probably the target of more--a political target and, therefore, the target of more threats than anyone, perhaps other than the President of the United States, Barack Obama. And so I prayed for Barack Obama, and now I continue to pray for him. And I pray for Donald Trump, that his Presidency will be successful and that his family will be safe, because it is about family. We are called for a purpose to this body. It is a great thing, and we know what it means to each of us to serve, and we recognize that in others. And we also recognize that you have your constituents. We have ours, and we respect you and your constituents who sent you here, all worthy of respect. But we do have our differences, and so I pray. My prayer is that we can resolve our differences in a way that furthers the preamble to the Constitution, takes us closer to ``e pluribus unum.'' And today, again, it is in the family. It is an injury in the family for the staff and for our colleague and for his leadership. As I mentioned just a minute ago in a meeting, sports are a wonderful thing in our country. They are probably one of the most unifying things. I think the arts, we like to say music, or plays, or whatever, but sports really bring us together in our cities. You see, people have the biggest differences of opinion on politics, and yet when their team is on the field, people come together. People come together. So when this team was on the field practicing with such camaraderie and such brotherhood--I don't know if you have any sisters on your team. We have two on our team--for this person to take this action was so cowardly, so cowardly. We will learn more about motivation and the rest of that, but it seems particularly sad--although any violent death, of course, is sad, but particularly sad at a time when people want us to come together, and we are prepared to come together tomorrow night--that this assault would be made. But we cannot let that be a victory for the assailant, or anyone who would think that way. So tomorrow, we will go out on the field. We will root for our team. We want everyone to do his or her very best, and we will use this occasion as one that brings us together and not separates us further. Again, I want to thank the Speaker for bringing us together, and, again, with endless gratitude to our Capitol Police, and, in particular today, of course, Crystal Griner, David Bailey; but never out of our prayers, Detective John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to share some thoughts with you on this sad day. Steve, Zach, and Matt, you are deeply in our prayers. We count the minutes until Steve returns. Please convey that to him, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank Mr. Ellison and our ranking member, Congresswoman Waters, for their great leadership on behalf of American consumers, American investors, and American taxpayers. I rise in opposition to the amendment and to the bill. Mr. Chair, today House Republicans are pushing a dangerous Wall Street first bill that would drag us right back to the days of the Great Recession. Eight years ago, unchecked recklessness on Wall Street ignited a financial meltdown that devastated families in every State in the Union: hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs every month, and the unemployment rate soared to 10 percent; more than 11 million Americans lost their homes through foreclosure; $13 trillion in wealth, including families' hard-earned retirement savings and college savings, was destroyed. On the night of Thursday, September 18, 2008, the Treasury Secretary came to the Capitol for an emergency meeting with congressional leaders, Democrats and Republicans from the House and the Senate, to inform us of the financial meltdown. Secretary Paulson described the financial meltdown, which was horrific. When I asked the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Bernanke, what he thought of what he was telling us, Chairman Bernanke told us that, if we did not act immediately, we would not have an economy by Monday. We would not have an economy by Monday. Tens of millions of middle class families across America still bear the scars. You saw on the right the rise of the Tea Party, on the left, Occupy Wall Street. The Democratic Congress vowed that Main Street taxpayers must never again pay the price for the recklessness of some on Wall Street. I don't paint everybody there with the same brush, but many on Wall Street, the predatory lenders and profiteers, had abused American families for far too long. With Dodd-Frank, Democrats enacted the strongest Wall Street consumer financial protections in history, critical reforms to protect hardworking Americans and to insist on accountability from Wall Street. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the law created has returned nearly $12 billion worth of compensation to 29 million wronged Americans--many of them seniors, many of them servicemembers. But with this bill, the Republicans will undo these safeguards, eviscerate the Consumer Bureau, and take our country back to the days of massive taxpayer bailouts. We cannot let that happen. Our Republican colleagues have named this dreadful and dangerous legislation, this Wall Street-first legislation, the Financial CHOICE Act. The Financial CHOICE Act to prey on investors, to prey on consumers, to prey on taxpayers. That is the choice they want to give the financial institutions. But let's look at the appalling choices it represents. Instead of protecting consumers, Republicans choose to help those who try to cheat consumers. Instead of protecting seniors, Republicans choose to help those who prey on retirement savings. Instead of protecting men and women in uniform, Republicans choose to help those who take advantage of our servicemembers' families while our heroes are defending our freedom on the battlefield. Instead of advancing an economy that works for everyone, Republicans choose to help the special interests get richer and to stick working people with a bill for a bailout when it goes wrong. They have always been handmaidens of the special interests. We know that. But even for them, when we think we have seen it all, this really takes them to a new low. So they call it the Financial CHOICE Act, but these are not the choices that the American people want. They are choices of the Republican Party that puts Wall Street first, that are handmaidens of special interests. So while Director Comey testified in the Senate earlier today, on this side of the Capitol, House Republicans are feeding working families to the wolves on Wall Street. As I said, I don't paint all on Wall Street with the same brush. The pervasive incentives baked into the Republican bill will enable the predatory to punish the honest. Now, here we go. Think of it. We have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 29 million Americans benefitting from $12 billion in compensation. Oh, they don't like that. They want to do away with that. The Volcker Rule, which would prevent the financial institutions from taking risk at taxpayers' expense, the classic Republican: privatize the gain, nationalize the risk. If we win, the private sector and these banks benefit. If we lose, the taxpayer pays the tab. Something that had nothing to do with the Dodd-Frank bill, the fiduciary rule, which only simply said that financial advisers should have the interest of the investor they are advising at heart. This bill says no. We are doing away with the very compromised, I might say, fiduciary rule to protect investors. So as I say, I don't paint all of Wall Street with the same brush. The American people want to know who stands with them. I know you want me not to talk about this because it is the truth about what you are doing to the American people, but as the minority leader, I have the right to speak on the floor. You had plenty of time to spread your malicious legislation to hurt the American people. I am using my time to speak the truth to them about what this bill does to their financial stability. The American people want to know who stands with them and who stands with the special interests. My Republican colleagues, in the name of hardworking American families, I use my time on behalf of America's hardworking families, not on behalf of special interests. I urge my colleagues to make the choice to reject this dastardly Wall Street-first bill and to vote in support of our men and women in uniform, our seniors who have built our country, in support of those hardworking Americans who are saving for their children's education, hoping to achieve the American Dream of homeownership, and do not want to be preyed upon by Republicans in Congress.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of a dear friend and beloved pillar of the San Francisco community, Father John Ring, who served for 25 years as Pastor of St. Vincent de Paul Church. Born and raised in San Francisco, Father Ring's leadership and compassion were invaluable to our parish and our community, in times of joy and sorrow alike. In the suffering of the Loma Prieta earthquake, Father Ring bound up the wounds of our community, consoling and encouraging us, tending his flock. During his entire Pastorate, we saw the creation of a mass for young adults, a group of Home Visitors to care for the sick and homebound in the parish and beyond, and for the first time girls were allowed to be altar servers. He also poured himself into the service of the parish's children, and the strength of the St. Vincent de Paul school will be an enduring part of Father Ring's rich legacy. My husband Paul, my family and I were deeply saddened to hear of Father Ring's passing. Our family has been parishioners at St. Vincent de Paul for generations, since Paul's parents John and Corinne Pelosi became parishioners in the 1930s. We count ourselves deeply blessed to have known Father Ring, and it was a special privilege to join in celebrating the Golden Jubilee of his priestly service in 2011. He will remain an inspiration to our family. Father Ring once said that Christ's farewell to his disciples was one of his favorite parts of Scripture. In the Gospel according to John, Jesus says, ``Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.'' Truly, Father Ring was an instrument of God's peace. The families of Father Ring's parish were blessed with a Pastor who strengthened their church and school, built community, and inspired their love for service and their love for God. May it bring comfort to all those who loved and admired Father Ring that so many join in remembering this extraordinary man and the blessing he was to our community.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him, Congressman Scott, I thank Frank Pallone, John Yarmuth, Ritchie Neal, our ranking members, who have done such excellent work on this debate on the values of our country. Mr. Speaker, our colleague, Mr. Clyburn, began his remarks quoting Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, and I want to join him. I think those words bear repeating. Over 50 years ago, Dr. King said: ``Of all of the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and the most inhumane because it often results in physical death.'' We come to the floor with the moral force of Dr. Martin Luther King's words in our hearts: Affordable health care is a civil right, a fundamental right for every person in our country, not just the privileged few. And so, in the spirit of Mr. Clyburn and Dr. King, let us be prayerful about how we go forward on this very personal issue about the well-being of every person in our country. Speaker Ryan once called this bill an act of mercy. There is no mercy here. Indeed, inequality and inhumanity is exactly what TrumpCare has in store for the American people. But when he said it is an act of mercy, here is what others said. From the beginning, TrumpCare was a moral monstrosity that will devastate seniors, children, and hardworking Americans. That was from me. But don't take it from me. Sister Simone Campbell said: This is not the faithful way forward and must be rejected. The Catholic Health Association wrote: We strongly encourage the full House to reject this replacement bill. And the United Methodist Church, opposing TrumpCare, this is what they said: People will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care. Lutheran Services in America said: TrumpCare will jeopardize the health care and long-term services and supports of millions of Americans. The Episcopal Church said: TrumpCare falls woefully short of our spiritual calling to care for the least of these, as well as the noble values upon which our great Nation was founded. And all that was said before the Republicans decided to destroy the protections of Americans with preexisting conditions. I grant our Republican friends their position. I respect them and their constituents who sent them here. But I reject the wrong priorities in TrumpCare--tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the health insurance for tens of millions of working families across America. TrumpCare very clearly spotlights the differences in priorities between Democrats and Republicans in Congress. It has stepped forward in the longstanding Republican belief that Medicare should wither on the vine, that Medicaid should be shrunken, and that Social Security should be privatized. If you believe in the health and well-being of the American people, you must reject this bill before us now. It is what TrumpCare--here is what it means to the American people. You know, much has been said about policy here today and over time. Much has been said about politics, what are the politics of this. What is really important is what this means to the American people. And they know they are listening. They know what it means to them. It means, TrumpCare does, it forces families to pay higher premiums and deductibles, increasing out-of-pocket costs. Higher costs. Less coverage. TrumpCare will take away health care from more than 24 million hardworking Americans. A crushing age tax. TrumpCare forces Americans aged 50 to 64 to pay premiums five times higher than what others pay for health coverage, no matter how healthy they are. It steals from Medicare. TrumpCare shortens the life of the Medicare trust fund and ransacks funds that seniors depend on to get long-term care they need. That is why it is consistent with their wither on the vine for Medicare philosophy. And then, if that were not bad enough, and they couldn't pass their bill because it was that bad, they moved further away from the American people by gutting key protections. TrumpCare eviscerates essential health benefits such as maternity care, prescription drugs, emergency coverage, prenatal care, and guts protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions. As bad as TrumpCare was the first time around, you know, it was dead. It died. It died right here on the floor. Now it has come back to life like a zombie, even more scary than before, and it is even worse. If Republicans had their way, Americans with preexisting conditions will be pushed off their insurance and segregated into high-risk pools, where they will face soaring costs, worse coverage, and restricted care. TrumpCare means huge premium increases. It is a frightening future for families who need affordable, dependable care the most. Now, on the floor, the Republicans have recklessly, and some would say fraudulently, claimed that TrumpCare covers Americans with preexisting conditions. It does not. As Robert Graboyes at the conservative Mercatus Center said about the Upton amendment: ``. . . the $8 billion amount is a pittance. Spread over 5 years, it is a fifth of a pittance.'' As Karen Pollitz from the Kaiser Family Foundation said, the Upton amendment will cover the costs for only 1 percent of the individual market. Others have given it up to 5 percent; 1 to 5 percent. Does that mean covering? No. Forcing a vote without a CBO score shows that the Republicans are afraid of the facts. They are afraid of learning the full consequences of their plan to push Americans with preexisting conditions into the cold or, as my colleague from New York said, off the sidewalk. If Republicans thought they were really protecting people, they wouldn't be afraid of the facts. But they are also afraid of the truth, and the truth that would come forth if we knew the facts. And they are afraid that the American people would find out that this is not a healthcare bill, this is a tax bill disguised as a health bill. This is a bill that is one of the biggest transfers of wealth from the middle class to the richest people and corporations in America. This is a tax bill not a healthcare bill. That is why they have to do it now so they can get on with their tax bill. But the suffering TrumpCare will inflict on the sick is all too clear. That is why this disastrous bill has been condemned by the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, AIDS United, the Children's Hospital Association, AARP, the March of Dimes. The list goes on and on--the American Cancer Society. Instead of reading all of these pages, I include them for the Record. Trumpcare--pulled from the House Floor by Speaker Paul Ryan on March 24--already meant higher health costs, more than 24 million Americans losing their health coverage, gutting key protections, a crushing Age Tax, and stealing from Medicare. Amazingly, Republicans have managed to make Trumpcare even worse. The MacArthur Amendment would completely gut the protections for people with pre-existing conditions by allowing states to waive essential health benefits and community rating rules, which prevent insurers from charging people with pre-existing conditions more. This will make it all but impossible for millions of Americans fighting illness to afford the coverage they desperately need. As seen below, over the last few days, the number of health care, consumer, seniors, children, disability and other groups that are speaking out against Trumpcare continues to grow. A Coalition of Patient Advocacy Groups, Including American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Diabetes Association, and March of Dimes: ``In March, our patient advocacy organizations collectively urged Congress to ensure that any changes made to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) provide affordable, accessible and adequate coverage and do not result in a loss of coverage for any Americans. The AHCA would do the opposite, causing at least 24 million Americans to lose health insurance, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. . . . We are alarmed by recent harmful changes to AHCA . . . These changes include allowing states to waive the requirement for essential health benefits . . . Another change allows states to waive protections against health status rating. Weakening these rules would enable insurers to charge higher prices to people with pre- existing conditions, possibly making insurance unaffordable for those who need it most. . . . The individuals and families we represent cannot go back to a time when people with pre-existing conditions could be denied coverage or forced to choose between purchasing basic necessities and affording their health care coverage. Given these factors, we oppose the latest draft of the AHCA. We urge Members of Congress to reject this legislation.'' [5/1/17] American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health, National Partnership for Women & Families: ``Rather than support recent gains in women's access to healthcare and coverage, the MacArthur Amendment and AHCA turn back the clock and reverse hard-won progress. . . . The MacArthur Amendment would enable states to waive EHBs including those for maternity and newborn care, preventive services, and services for mental health and substance use disorders; [and] to waive community rating rules. . . . Supporters of the bill claim this bill maintains protections for those with preexisting conditions, but allowing states to waive coverage of EHB and charge people more based on their health status renders the promise of coverage for preexisting conditions to be meaningless. . . . Women and families must not be made to suffer, lose access to care and coverage, and pay higher healthcare costs. . . . The AHCA and the MacArthur Amendment turn the clock back on women's health and should not move forward.'' [5/1/17] Association of American Medical Colleges: ``This week, the House could vote on a new version of the American Health Care Act that includes the MacArthur amendment. . . . The [MacArthur] amendment's treatment of essential health benefits and health status underwriting dilutes protections for many Americans and would leave individuals with preexisting conditions facing higher premiums and reduced access to care. The shortcomings in the underlying bill remain the same. The original analysis from the Congressional Budget Office indicated that 14 million Americans would lose their health insurance coverage as early as next year, and as many as 24 million by 2024. Nothing in the bill has changed that alters the fact that this legislation would lead to fewer Americans with quality insurance, less affordable coverage for those who have it, and the destabilization of the current Medicaid program.'' [5/2/17] Children's Hospital Association: ``On behalf of our nation's children's hospitals and the patients and families they serve, Children's Hospital Association (CHA) continues to oppose the newly modified American Health Care Act (AHCA) and strongly urges the House of Representatives to reject the bill. Recently adopted changes only worsen the AHCA by putting children with preexisting conditions at increased risk of losing health care coverage and failing to correct the Medicaid cuts that would impact over 30 million kids. . . . The block grant option in particular would be devastating to children as it eliminates Medicaid's EPSDT (Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment) benefit which ensures children receive immunizations, mental health assessments and vision, eye and hearing exams as well as other medical services they might need. CHA urgently asks members of Congress to vote against the AHCA.'' [4/27/17] Children's Leadership Council: ``The Children's Leadership Council opposes the American Health Care Act (AHCA) because it would jeopardize health care for millions of babies, children, youth and families. We urge you to vote NO on this legislation. . . . The ACHA's changes to Medicaid would radically restructure a program that has worked for more than 50 years to support children's health. The Medicaid cap would shift $839 billion to states, forcing them to cut eligibility, benefits, or provider rates that could have disastrous health consequences. There is no question that the massive cuts to Medicaid, increased premiums likely for millions of families, and eliminating the Essential Health Benefits requirements under current law will seriously harm children and families. . . . This legislation is a dangerous step backward.'' [5/1/17] Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities: ``The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) is strongly opposed to the amended American Health Care Act. The amended American Health Care Act retains the original bill's proposals to dramatically cut Medicaid services that are vital to people with disabilities and seniors through per capita caps, which CCD has opposed. . . . The newest amendments to the American Health Care Act make the bill even more harmful to people with disabilities. The new amendments would allow states to easily obtain waivers that would allow them to charge higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions, including people with disabilities. They would also allow states to seek waivers from the Affordable Care Act's requirement to provide essential health benefits, including services for people with disabilities . . . We urge you to oppose the bill should it come to a vote.'' [4/28/17] National Education Association: ``Apparently, snatching health care coverage from children and families was not enough for House Republican leaders and the Trump administration. To make a terrible bill even worse, a new amendment to the American Health Care Act (AHCA) would allow states to jettison existing essential health benefit requirements and permit insurance companies to charge people with pre-existing conditions more than they charge healthy people. . . . If the AHCA and new amendment are enacted, millions of kids and families would effectively lose the health care coverage they need. The new amendment also threatens to make insurance for people with pre-existing conditions prohibitively expensive.'' [4/27/17] American Society of Clinical Oncology: ``On behalf of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), I write to express our strong opposition to the American Health Care Act (AHCA), as currently amended. . . . Studies show that when cancer patients do not have adequate insurance they receive less care, receive it later, and have worse outcomes than those with better insurance coverage. . . . The AHCA as currently constructed will create or worsen barriers to care. It will add costs to the system, decrease access to appropriate treatment and increase existing disparities of care. We are especially concerned with provisions allowing state waivers that could erode important protections for people with cancer, including pre-existing condition safeguards, coverage of essential services, and access to affordable health insurance. . . . ASCO strongly opposes passage of the AHCA in its current form.'' [4/27/17] American Thoracic Society: ``On behalf of the 16,000 members of the American Thoracic Society (ATS), I want to voice my grave concerns with the latest legislative proposal developed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). . . . The ATS opposes any legislation that does not ensure affordable health insurance coverage for Americans currently insured under the ACA. We are concerned that allowing states to waive important insurance reforms in the Affordable Care Act will lead to reduced coverage for many Americans and significant price increases for patients with preexisting conditions. Further, we are concerned that reliance on ``high risk pools'' will not adequately meet the health insurance needs of many Americans with pre-existing conditions. We note that previous attempts at implementing state-based high risk pools have been largely unsuccessful. Members of the ATS serve a large and diverse patient population, including patients with respiratory diseases, critical illnesses and sleep disorders such as asthma, COPD, pneumonia, sepsis and obstructive sleep apnea. Our patients cannot afford to lose affordable health insurance coverage for any period of time.'' [4/27/17] Lutheran Services in America: ``Lutheran Services in America continues to oppose the drastic and unnecessary restructure of the Medicaid guarantee to a per capita cap system as proposed in the American Health Care Act (AHCA). Furthermore, we oppose the bill's new provisions that eliminate protections for people with pre-existing conditions as these provisions would be devastating to people with chronic diseases and disabilities. . . . In addition, the modified bill maintains the AHCA's drastic cuts and fundamental restructuring of the Medicaid program, shifting significant risks and costs to states, and to the people who need and provide Medicaid services. . . . Lutheran Services in America respectfully urges members of Congress to reject this or any legislation that would erode Medicaid, increase the number of uninsured and/or decrease protections for preexisting conditions.'' [4/28/17] Planned Parenthood Federation of America: ``The latest Republican proposal to repeal the Affordable Care Act is the worst legislation for women's health in a lifetime. It eliminates the community rating provision, allowing insurers to charge people with pre-existing conditions an exorbitant amount for coverage. Despite the fact that the proposal claims to maintain the current prohibition on gender rating, it still allows insurers to once again discriminate against women and charge more for being a woman. Eliminating the community rating provision disproportionately affects women, since insurers can claim having given birth, having had a C- section, or having been a survivor of domestic violence is a so-called pre-existing condition. For example, a woman who had breast cancer could be charged more than $28,000 per year for coverage and a woman who was previously pregnant could be charged more than $17,000 per year for . . . They took a bad bill that would result in 24 million people losing their insurance and higher premiums and actually made it worse. [4/ 27/17] Federal AIDS Policy Partnership: ``The undersigned 77 organizations are writing to strongly urge you to oppose the amended American Health Care Act (AHCA) on behalf of the 24 million or more Americans estimated to lose coverage, including tens of thousands of people with HIV. . . . Healthcare coverage can be a life or death issue for people living with HIV, and in the three years that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) coverage has been available it has made a critical difference. . . . We cannot afford to go back to the pre-ACA sick care system that focused on treating disability and disease rather than preventing it. Please support access to healthcare coverage for the more than 52 million Americans living with pre- existing conditions, including 1.1 million living with HIV. We hope we can count on you to oppose the amended American Health Care Act.'' [5/1/17] AIDS United: ``AIDS United seeks a health care system that will eventually enable the end of HIV in the United States. AHCA makes major changes to the U.S. health care system that would, if passed, worsen the provision of HIV prevention services for people at risk for HIV and the treatment and care for people living with HIV. . . . AIDS United is especially concerned that the [MacArthur] amendment, far from improving the situation, will make it easier for insurance companies to raise rates on people living with HIV, people with other chronic conditions and the elderly. . . . AIDS United notes that thanks to Congress's strong response over many years, the U.S. has made substantial progress in responding to the HIV epidemic. However, doing so requires a strong health care system that can ensure that people living with HIV are able to access care and treatment . . . H.R. 1628 will reverse some of the gains that we have made in ensuring coverage for both prevention and treatment. AIDS United urges you to decide to vote no and publicly state your position prior to any vote.'' [4/28/17] American College of Nurse-Midwives: ``On behalf of the American College of Nurse-Midwives, . . . we strongly urge the House of Representatives to vote NO on the revised American Health Care Act (ACHA). The legislation, in its current form, would further impeded access to healthcare and coverage for millions of women and newborns. Midwives stand for improving access to quality care and coverage for women and newborns . . . including, but not limited to, coverage and access to a full range of preventative, reproductive and sexual health services under state Medicaid programs and coverage and access to essential health benefits (EHBs), including maternity and newborn care. The newly-revised AHCA language will end this guarantee and radically turn back the clock on the progress made in women's health. Specifically, the ``MacArthur Amendment'' would enable states to apply for the ability to waive EHBs, including those for maternity and newborn care, to waive community rating rules, and to shift patient with preexisting conditions or illnesses into high- risk pools. These provisions, if adopted, could have dire consequences for women's health and health coverage.'' [4/27/ 17] AARP: ``This harmful legislation still puts an Age Tax on older Americans and puts vulnerable populations at risk through a series of backdoor deals that attempt to shift responsibility to states. Older Americans need affordable health care services and prescriptions. This legislation still goes in the opposite direction, increasing insurance premiums for older Americans and not doing anything to lower drug costs. AARP continues to oppose legislation that would impose an Age Tax, eliminate protections for pre-existing conditions, weaken Medicare, erode seniors' ability to live independently because of billions of dollars in Medicaid cuts, and give sweetheart deals to drug and insurance companies while doing nothing to lower the cost of health care or prescription drugs. We intend to let all 38 million of our members know exactly how their Representative votes on this bill in newsletters, in our publications, on social media and in other formats.'' [4/26/17] American Medical Association: ``After reviewing the MacArthur Amendment to H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the American Medical Association (AMA) remains opposed to passage of this legislation. As we have previously stated, we are deeply concerned that the AHCA would result in millions of Americans losing their current health insurance coverage. Nothing in the MacArthur amendment remedies the shortcomings of the underlying bill. The MacArthur Amendment would allow states to apply for waivers for critical consumer protections provided in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including . . . . the requirements that health insurers must cover certain essential health benefits, and the ban on health status underwriting. The current ban on health status underwriting protects individuals from being discriminated against by virtue of their medical conditions. Prior to the passage of the ACA, such individuals were routinely denied coverage and/or priced out of affordable coverage. We are particularly concerned about allowing states to waive this requirement because it will likely lead to patients losing their coverage.'' [4/27/17] American College of Physicians: ``The College strongly believes in the first, do no harm principle. Therefore, we continue to urge that Congress move away from the fundamentally flawed and harmful policies that would result from the American Health Care Act and from the changes under consideration--including the proposed ``Limited Waiver'' amendment--that would make the bill even worse for patients.'' [4/24/17] American Hospital Association: ``The latest version of the AHCA continues to put health coverage in jeopardy for many Americans. Our top concern is what this change could mean for older and sicker patients, including those with pre-existing conditions, such as cancer patients and those with chronic conditions. For these reasons, along with our previously stated concerns about the AHCA, we cannot support the bill. . . . The amendment proposed this week would dramatically worsen the bill. The changes included put consumer protections at greater risk by allowing states to waive the essential health benefit standards, which could leave patients without access to critical health services and increase out-of-pocket spending. This could allow plans to set premium prices based on individual risk for some consumers, which could significantly raise costs for those with pre-existing conditions.'' [4/27/17] America's Essential Hospitals: ``This latest version of the AHCA is not an improvement. It's simply bad policy that will cut a lifeline of health care for millions of Americans. The legislation also would leave unchanged more than $800 billion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade, breaking the nation's safety net and saddling state, local governments, and taxpayers with new costs for indigent care. The nation has spoken on the AHCA: only 17 percent of the public support it and their elected representatives have rejected it once already.'' [4/26/17] Catholic Health Association: ``It is critically important to look at this bill for what it is. It is not in any way a health care bill. Rather, it is legislation whose aim is to take significant funding allocated by Congress for health care for very low income people and use that money for tax cuts for some of our wealthiest citizens. This is contrary to the spirit of who we are as a nation, a giant step backward that should be resisted.'' [4/27/17] U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: ``It is deeply disappointing to many Americans that, in modifying the American Health Care Act to again attempt a vote, proponents of the bill left in place its serious flaws, including unacceptable modifications to Medicaid that will endanger coverage and affordability for millions of people, according to reports,'' said Bishop Dewane. ``Sadly, some of the recently proposed amendments--especially those designed to give states flexibility--lack apparent safeguards to ensure quality of care. These additions could severely impact many people with pre-existing conditions while risking for others the loss of access to various essential coverages.'' [4/27/17] American Nurses Association: ``The new bill is an even further departure from our principles; endangers consumer protections put into place by the ACA. [4/26/17] American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network: ``The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) is deeply concerned about a proposed amendment to the American Health Care Act (AHCA) that would create an option for states to obtain waivers from the Essential Health Benefits (EHB) and the community rating rule. These two rules work together to guarantee access to comprehensive and affordable insurance that covers cancer prevention and treatment for patients and survivors with pre-existing conditions. . . . In short, the proposal could lead to bare bones coverage plans that push significant costs onto patients who access care.'' [4/20/17] American Lung Association: ``The American Lung Association requests that Representatives oppose the American Health Care Act (AHCA) with the new amendment by Rep. MacArthur. The American Lung Association opposes the MacArthur amendment because would allow states to opt-out of the Essential Health Benefits (EHB)--resulting in millions of Americans having inadequate care. . . . All Americans--regardless of the state in which they live--need adequate coverage for the range of essential health services and treatments including life- saving cancer screening.'' [4/26/17] March of Dimes: ``Women and children need quality, affordable insurance coverage to be born healthy and lead healthy, productive lives. Unfortunately, in its current form, the MacArthur amendment to American Health Care Act will deny millions of pregnant women, babies, and their families the affordable coverage and quality services they need. . . . The MacArthur amendment will offer states and health plans numerous opportunities to charge people with pre-existing conditions higher rates, design plans that explicitly exclude the services they are most likely to need, and erect barriers to care.'' [4/26/17] Families USA: ``America's families must be heard. By now, it should be clear to House Republicans and the Trump Administration from all the town halls, letters, phone calls and tweets that this is not what people want. They do not want to return to the dark days when insurers were free to charge the sick and old more for coverage and offered policies that covered very little, often leaving people to cope with staggering medical bills. It's time for President Trump and the GOP to drop this harmful effort to undermine the nation's health care system. It's time to move on.'' [4/ 26/17] American Psychological Association: ``We are writing on behalf of the American Psychological Association and the American Psychological Association Practice Organization to express our opposition to the American Health Care Act, as recently revised and proposed for floor consideration. Our organizations comprise nearly 115,700 members and affiliates, who are clinicians, researchers, educators, consultants, and students.'' [4/26/17] Arc of the United States: ``The Arc of the United States is strongly opposed to the amended American Health Care Act. The amended American Health Care Act retains the original bill's proposals to dramatically cut Medicaid services that are vital to people with disabilities and seniors through per capita caps. The new amendments make the AHCA even more harmful to people with disabilities.'' [4/26/17] Chronic Illness and Disability Partnership: ``On behalf of the Chronic Illness and Disability Partnership as well as allied organizations, we are writing to strongly urge you to oppose the American Health Care Act (AHCA), with or without the amendment to allow states to waive community rating and Essential Health Benefits protections (the MacArthur Amendment). If enacted, the amended bill will only increase the 24 million Americans estimated to lose coverage under the AHCA, including millions of individuals living with chronic conditions and disabilities. The MacArthur Amendment seeks to deliver cheaper insurance to healthy Americans by undercutting crucial Essential Health Benefits requirements and excluding the most vulnerable Americans from the private insurance market by allowing states to remove crucial consumer protections.'' [4/27/17] Democratic Governors Association: ``This new proposal is nothing more than the reheated leftovers of the failed Trumpcare bill. Just like last month's bill, this one would slash Medicaid funding, throw millions out of health coverage and leave states holding the bag. The only fresh idea in this proposal is a new way to raise insurance rates on sick people. States are happy to work with the federal government on strengthening health care, but we never asked for the flexibility to jack up premiums on people with pre-existing conditions. Congress should again reject this disastrous proposal that would wreck state budgets and cut millions off of health coverage.'' [4/27/17] National Nurse United: ``The original version of the American Health Care Act posed a mortal threat to the health and well-being of our patients, and to the health security of our country. The new version, which incorporates changes negotiated between the House Freedom Caucus and Congressman Tom MacArthur, will be even worse for our patients. This new version has not yet received a score from the Congressional Budget Office, and it should not be considered by the House until a CBO score has been made public.'' [4/26/17] Leadership Council of Aging Organizations: ``While LCAO is made up of organizations that often have different perspectives on public policies, as a coalition LCAO strongly opposes the American Health Care Act (AHCA) of 2017, which would cause at least 24 million Americans to lose their health care insurance. We strongly oppose the Medicaid cuts and caps that remain the core of the American Health Care Act. Over six million older adults rely on Medicaid. Among the non-Medicare population, Americans aged 50-64 are the most likely to face health challenges and have pre-existing conditions. The AHCA will expose these older Americans to significantly higher premiums and health care costs, if they can afford to purchase coverage at all. We are also deeply disappointed that there is a push to vote on the bill without a revised estimate from the Congressional Budget Office on how it will impact Americans. We fear and expect that the proposed changes will increase the number of uninsured beyond the current estimate of 24 million. For these reasons, as well as other harms that would result for older Americans and their families, LCAO opposes AHCA and urges members to vote against it.'' Common Sense Kids Action: ``On behalf of the millions of American kids and families who rely on comprehensive, dependable health insurance to stay healthy and to get medical treatment when they need it, we are writing to respectfully express our strong opposition to your bill, H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act (AHCA). Thanks to current law, including the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), 95% of young children in the U.S. today have health insurance. That's a remarkable achievement. However, the AHCA will result in 24 million fewer Americans having coverage, including millions of children. Even with changes recently suggested to your bill, America's kids will be best served by strengthening the Affordable Care Act and preserving Medicaid and CHIP, not by repealing the Affordable Care Act and block granting or establishing a per capita cap on Medicaid. We urge you to keep our children's future foremost in your thinking, withdraw your bill, and work on a bipartisan basis to support measures that protect and strengthen children's health care.'' American Hospital Association: ``The latest version of the AHCA continues to put health coverage in jeopardy for many Americans. Our top concern is what this change could mean for older and sicker patients, including those with pre-existing conditions, such as cancer patients and those with chronic conditions. For these reasons, along with our previously stated concerns about the AHCA, we cannot support the bill. The amendment proposed this week would dramatically worsen the bill. The changes included put consumer protections at greater risk by allowing states to waive the essential health benefit standards, which could leave patients without access to critical health services and increase out-of-pocket spending. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has not yet scored the amendment. However, CBO previously projected that the AHCA would result in 24 million fewer people covered in 2026. As the backbone of America's health safety-net, hospitals and health systems must protect access to care for those who need it and ensure that the most vulnerable patients are not left behind. The AHCA continues to fall far short of that goal.''

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, under TrumpCare, families, seniors, vulnerable children, Americans with disabilities, people struggling to overcome addiction, and the sick will lose their health care. Rural hospitals will be closed. Nearly 2 million jobs will be destroyed across America. Seven million veterans will lose access to tax credits for health care. And all of this, to give a massive tax cut to the richest in America. TrumpCare is a billionaire's tax cut, again, disguised as a healthcare bill. It is Robin Hood in reverse, one of the largest, again, transfers of wealth from working families to the rich in our country. Today, we honor the visions of our Founders, we can, who risked everything. They risked everything, their lives, their liberty, their sacred honor, to advance the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the life, a healthier life, the freedom to pursue your happiness, the freedom from being job-locked or policy-locked because of what the Republicans want to do today. Today, we fight to preserve affordable health care as the right of every American, again, not the privileged few. Today, we fight for children like Zoe Madison Lihn. Zoe was born with a congenital heart defect in May of 2010. She faced her first of three heart surgeries at 15 hours old. By 6 months old, Zoe was halfway to her lifetime limit her insurer had placed on her. She faced a grim future, not only using up her lifetime limit by preschool but by carrying a preexisting condition that will require attention and care for the rest of her life. Under the Affordable Care Act, Zoe is protected, but TrumpCare puts her future in danger. I wish that our Members who vote for this bill, I hope you make time to sit down with the parents of a newborn with a heart condition, or a young woman who just learned she had breast cancer, the family of loved ones struggling with a disease or a chronic condition, any of the tens of millions of Americans who are rightfully terrified of what TrumpCare will mean in their lives. Mr. Speaker, we have, with this bill, a right, a wonderful opportunity. This is one of the best civics lessons we can engage in. Because of what happened following the election, the American people are engaged. They are paying attention. I am not saying in a political way, I am saying in a personal way. A former Speaker said: All politics is local. In the case of health care, all politics is personal when it comes to health care. And so, this civics lesson will teach the American people a number of things. As special as we think we are when we come to the floor here, most Americans don't know who their Member of Congress is. But they will now, when they find out that you voted to take away their health care. They will know when you put an age tax on them, or undermine Medicare and Medicaid and the rest. Oh, yeah, they are paying attention because it is really personal with them and their families. So I think we have to get ready for that. I have Members, I have colleagues who have the mantle of being a moderate. You vote for this bill, you have walked the plank from moderate to radical. And you are walking the plank for what? A bill that will not be accepted by the United States Senate. Why are you doing this? Do you believe in what is in this bill? Some of you have said: Well, they will fix it in the Senate. But you have every provision of this bill tattooed on your forehead. You will glow in the dark on this one. You will glow in the dark. So don't walk the plank, especially unnecessarily. Our responsibility to the sick and the hurt is Biblical. It is fundamental to who we are. As Pope Francis said: ``Health is not a consumer good but a universal right, so access to health services cannot be a privilege.'' Today, let us declare, once again, that affordable health care must be the right of every American, not the privileged few. So I ask you, my colleagues, does TrumpCare lower health costs? Does TrumpCare provide better health care? Does TrumpCare protect seniors and families? Is TrumpCare good for our veterans? Is there any caring in TrumpCare at all? For the sake of our values, to honor our responsibilities to our Founders, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to our veterans who protect us, and to our children whose aspirations are our guide, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this disastrous TrumpCare bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished ranking member for her recognition and her leadership on this legislation that we have the opportunity to vote on. So I thank Ranking Member Nita Lowey. I thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Chairman Frelinghuysen, for his leadership as well. And I commend his staff, Nancy Fox, and others for their hard work on this; and to Ranking Member Lowey, Shalanda Young, Chris Bigelow, my own staff Richard Meltzer, and House and Senate staff members for getting us to this very important place. The omnibus reflects significant progress defeating some dangerous riders, which I think are dangerous, and securing key victories. Here is the thing: I spent many years in the Appropriations Committee. And I know, left to your own devices, the Appropriations Committee can find your common ground. You appreciate each other, you grant each other your positions on issues, and you understand the art of negotiating in a successful way. There were some items that were suggested other than from the committee. From the White House, for example, a border wall, deportation force, things like that, 160 poison pills, which were ranging from undermining a woman's right to choose to dismantling Dodd- Frank, et cetera. But you all worked together to balance the equities and come up with a bill that will have, I believe, broad support in the Congress, certainly bipartisan support in the Congress. But just not to speak about what we didn't like about the bill, there are some very positive aspects of it that I want to recognize--some nondefense increases in spending, which will save lives and create jobs. Coal miners' health. We were so proud to secure more than $1 billion to deliver permanent health benefits to thousands of coal miners and their families who stood to lose their health benefits this month. God bless them for their advocacy. It was so important to our discussion. Opioid epidemic. An additional $600 million for fighting the opioid epidemic. Protecting EPA. There was going to be a huge cut, and now just a 1 percent cut in the EPA. We see that as a success. Year-round Pell grants. So important. Science funding. The omnibus increases funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy, the Department of Energy Office of Science, and ARPA-E, all initiatives that some wanted to cut but were happy had survived that interest in cutting. Our colleague, Congresswoman Velazquez, has led us on the Puerto Rico issue. The omnibus includes vital funds to stabilize Puerto Rico's underfunded Medicaid program, which threatened so many of our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico. Democrats are very happy and give credit to, in a bipartisan way, led by Congresswoman Barbara Lee, securing nearly $1 billion in humanitarian assistance to alleviate famine resulting from more drought and displacement in Africa and the Middle East, saving countless lives around the world. Left without assistance, maybe 1.5 million children would die of malnutrition in the next 6 months in Africa. And then it takes us to biomedical research. I served with Mrs. Lowey and others on the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee for many years. And the National Institutes of Health is this place that has the Biblical power to cure. It has scientific opportunity. And where there is scientific opportunity, we want to place additional resources. Lives depend on it. So in stark contrast to the skinny budget that came out earlier, this legislation increases funding for the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion. And I want to say on that, as we relish that $2 billion and what it could mean to the good health of the American people, we have to protect our investments. As we invest in new treatments and cures, we must also ensure that all Americans have access to them. That is why it is curious to me that on the same day that we vote on this omnibus bill and increase funding for the National Institutes of Health, increase funding for our veterans, and all the rest of that, Republicans are working furiously to advance TrumpCare's devastating impact on America's health care. No matter what anybody says to you about activities they are having today to tweak one piece of the bill, it will still be a bill that has higher costs, forcing families to pay higher premiums and deductibles and out- of-pocket costs. This will block some people from access to the lifesaving cures that we are investing in the National Institutes of Health to create. Less coverage will take coverage from 24 million hardworking Americans. Higher costs. Fewer people covered. Veterans tax. TrumpCare will deny tax credits for health care to 7 million military veterans. TrumpCare destroys protections for preexisting conditions. So many of the investments at the National Institutes of Health that we are talking about are to find cures and to find preventions. But when we are trying to find cures, that means that the people we are trying to cure have a preexisting medical condition. This would destroy the guarantee protection for a preexisting medical condition and gut the essential health benefits in the Affordable Care Act. There is a crushing age tax. If you are 50 to 64, you will pay five times higher than others pay for health care. It undermines our investments in Medicare. So I mention this because I have always thought, when I sat on that committee year in and year out, day in and day out, hour on hour, listening to the challenges facing America's families for illnesses that they were suffering, a diagnosis that they were frightened by, that what they wanted us to do was to invest in a cure, but that meant access to that cure. So they are trying to say: Well, we are going to help with high-risk pools, and that is going to neutralize everything I said about higher costs, lower coverage, et cetera. But the conservative Mercatus Center said: ``The amendment at hand focuses on high-risk pools, but the $8 billion amount is a pittance.'' And said: ``Spread over 5 years, it's a fifth of a pittance.'' That was Robert Graboyes, a healthcare expert at the conservative Mercatus Center. Karen Pollitz, a healthcare expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said that the additional $8 billion would likely not be enough to make the high-risk pools workable. She said that would be enough money to cover costs for only 1 percent of the individual market. So, again, let us protect the investment that we are making. Let us elevate it with pride and say $2 billion for the National Institutes of Health. But what does that mean to you, the average American, if you can't have access to that in a way that is affordable? Again, 51 years ago, Dr. King said, and I say again, because I say this all of the time: ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and the most inhuman because it often results in physical death.'' So, again, this appropriations bill is a way for us to help meet the needs of the American people. This Appropriations Committee did an excellent job in resolving differences and putting forth a balance of equities as we go forward. But let us not give with one hand and take away with the other as we, in the same 24-hour period, say: Aren't we wonderful. $2 billion for medical research. Under the Republican's healthcare plan, it will most likely benefit the privileged few at the expense of America's working families. That is not what we are supposed to be doing here. That is what we are taking pride in. What we are taking pride in is of the great possibilities, but let's make those possibilities available. And I say that as one who served for many years on the Appropriations Committee, one whose goal in life was to sit on the Labor-HHS Subcommittee and to increase the funding of the National Institutes of Health, but to do it for the purpose of all Americans having access. Having said that, getting back to this omnibus bill, again, I am very proud of the work of Nita Lowey, of the ranking members of the subcommittees, and of the staff who worked so hard. I am especially proud of the work, also, of our distinguished chairman, Mr. Frelinghuysen. I join him in recognizing the work of his subcommittee chairs on all of this. It is a product to be proud of. I thank Mr. Frelinghuysen and Mrs. Lowey. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, twenty years ago, Bay Area innovation leaders John Doerr, John Chambers, and Jim Barksdale spurred a new era of American technological advancement by creating TechNet. Today, TechNet represents the spirit of technological innovation that continues to thrive in Silicon Valley. TechNet stands as a remarkable example of how bringing people together can inspire innovation, strengthen our economy, and create a more productive future. TechNet's network of CEOs and senior executives have worked with leaders in Congress to drive an Innovation Agenda that creates jobs and opportunities for Americans. As we look to the future, the iconic companies and dynamic startups that form TechNet will continue to lead our nation in the development of transformative technologies that create more opportunities for more Americans. Congratulations on 20 years of inspired leadership and shining achievement. Best wishes on many more years of success unleashing the full potential of American innovation.