Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman from Philadelphia for yielding and for giving us this opportunity to sing the praises of a great man, Chairman Bill Gray, Democratic Whip Bill Gray. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege just a few weeks ago of receiving a call from Bill Gray. And I said, oh, it was just out of the blue, wanting to know how my family was doing, challenging my husband to tennis, as always, telling him is he ready to get beaten by me, and this or that. He said, I just want to know how things are. And he asked me how things were going here, just a call of friendship. And it was just so remarkable to me that about 2 weeks later we had the word. He told me he was going to Wimbledon, he was taking his sons to Wimbledon. He was going to go. He loved tennis. And then when we got the word, it was just so strange, and I felt that God had really truly blessed me because I had that opportunity to speak with him, just out of the blue and within a matter of weeks before his passing. I did have the privilege of serving with him. As I look around and see all these much younger Members, maybe they didn't all serve with him, but they knew of his great leadership for our country. Anybody who did serve with him, or knew of the leadership of Bill Gray, knew that he was, in a word, a giant, a giant of Philadelphia, a giant of the Congress, a giant of our country. He was a leader and a trailblazer, a proud Representative of the people of Philadelphia. He just loved his district, a man who left his mark on the history of his city. His time in Congress was an extension of his family business, public service, serving the community, acting on the values of his faith, giving back to his neighbors and the less fortunate. Others have spoken about how he made this choice. This is a man who could have done anything in life. He had the talent. He had the stamina. He had the energy, the values and the rest. He was a success in anything he strove to do, but he chose the path that his family had laid out for him, ministering to the needs of people. In the House of Representatives, Congressman Gray will forever stand as a first. He was the first African American to serve as chair of the Budget Committee, a very big deal, the first African American to serve as the majority whip in the House. He sounded the alarm, not only about the injustices of apartheid in South Africa, but about what America and Congress could do to end it. He broadened the reach of his public service beyond Congress, helping send more young people to college, as president and CEO of the United Negro College Fund, and how excited he was about that. He did everything with gusto, whether it was serving as a Member, as a chairman, as the whip, and then to have his values be the focus of his work at the United Negro College Fund. To serve alongside Bill Gray, I'm sure all of my colleagues will attest, was to be inspired by his passion and his commitment, by his focus on the future, and by his belief in the common good. It was an honor and privilege to know him as a colleague, a special privilege for any of us who had that privilege to call him friend. We only hope it is a comfort to his wife, Andrea, whom he adored. I hope it is a comfort to Andrea and to William IV, to Justin, and to Andrew, that so many people mourn their loss, are praying for them at this sad time. Well, he went doing what he enjoyed, at Wimbledon. Watching Wimbledon all weekend, all I could think of was Bill Gray being there. So many people loved him. So many people share the grief of the Gray family. All I can say is that, knowing him over all of these years, he lived life to the fullest. Though he left us too soon, what he packed into his years of life and service and leadership was something so remarkable. So that's why I thank the gentleman for recognizing Bill Gray and giving us the opportunity to do so on the floor with the admiration and affection that you have brought to this meeting this evening through all of the voices of our colleagues. I'm sure we'll be saying more and more about Bill Gray. He wasn't into titles. He liked having the titles, but he liked the friendship of being called Bill Gray.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on December 8, 1941, a page stood on the House floor as President Franldin Roosevelt spoke of a ``date which will live in infamy'' and asked the Congress to declare war on Japan. The son of a Congressman, ready and willing to serve his country, this young man enlisted in the Army in 1944 and fought on distant shores in World War II. In 1955, he followed in the family tradition of public service, ran for his father's seat in Congress, and won. Today, that page, that young man, is the Dean of the House and the longest-serving Member of Congress in history: John Dingell. Over the course of nearly six decades, John Dingell has had a hand in almost every issue vital to the American people: from the air that we breathe and the water that we drink, to how the government serves its citizens, to essential consumer protections. Yet, among his countless achievements, none hold greater significance than his contributions to the health of the American people. Indeed, it has been the constant theme of his career. Health care was the family families--as his father had introduced the first-ever national health care legislation. In 1955, carrying forward that legacy, John Dingell ran for Congress on the platform of health care for all. In 1965, Medicare became the law of the land with the bang of John Dingell's gavel. With each new Congress, he would introduce bills, hold hearings, build momentum for health reform, And in 2010, after half-a-century of fighting for his cause, he sat by President Obama's side to see the Affordable Care Act signed into law--a dream long overdue, a dream of the Dingell family, a dream finally realized for all Americans. To work alongside John Dingell is to be inspired by his strength and passion, by the history of our institution, by the seriousness of our work. This year, we recognize John Dingell as the longest-serving Member in Congress. But it is not only about the length of his service--it is about the quality of his leadership. It is an honor to serve with him as a colleague. It is a privilege to know him as a friend. It is a source of pride to work with this living legend in the Congress of the United States. May we all continue to be moved and strengthened by the dedication, commitment, and conviction of the great John Dingell.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding; but more importantly, I thank him for his outstanding leadership for helping us live the Bible here in the Congress. He has been a relentless, dissatisfied, persistent champion for feeding the hungry in America and throughout the world. He is the living example, personification of the Gospel of Matthew, and I appreciate the statements you made earlier about priorities and the least of our brethren. I thank you, Mr. McGovern, for your leadership day in and day out of the task force on hunger and working with Congresswoman DeLauro, an appropriator, who shares your value on this subject. You both have been magnificent. And I thank you as a mom, because we all have our motivation for going into politics or deciding that we're going to run for office, and my motivation can be described in three words: the children, the children, the children. As a mother of five myself and as a grandmother, I know how children thrive when they have the attention, the love, the food, and the care that they need. It is always a wonderment to me that in this, the greatest country that ever existed in the history of the world, that one in four or one in five children goes to sleep hungry at night. So it is another wonderment to me why we should even have to have this conversation on the floor of the House as to whether we, as a nation, are prepared to feed our children. We are all familiar with the comment, ``from the mouths of babes.'' From the mouth of babes. It's sometimes followed by ``come gems.'' In this case, ``from the mouths of babes comes food.'' Food to live, to be sustained, to be healthy, food to study and do well in school, food to have respect in their family and their friends and all the rest. What's really interesting about it, though, for all the sentiment that is involved about feeding the children of our country, it makes economic sense to do so as well. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, says that rate increases of SNAP benefits is one of the two best options to boost growth and jobs in a weak economy. For every $1 invested in the SNAP program, for every $1 invested in that initiative, $1.70 is injected into the economy for economic activity. This purchasing power given to families who will spend it immediately because this is a necessity, this purchasing, injects demand into the economy, creating jobs. Don't take it from me. The Congressional Budget Office says this is one of the two best ways to boost growth. Another economic aspect of this is that, as has been said over and over again, nearly 20 million children--20 million children--are the beneficiaries of food stamps. Why do those families need food stamps? Well, some of them are families that are making the minimum wage. In fact, if you're a family of four and you have two wage earners, Mr. Chairman, the income you make from two wage earners making the minimum wage still has you below the poverty line and eligible for food stamps. Two wage earners making the minimum wage cannot afford to put food on the table; hence, they qualify for food stamps. These food stamps in some ways are subsidizing a too low minimum wage in our country. So, speaking of the children, the children, the children, I hope that one of the other things that we will do here is to raise minimum wage, because that is the decent thing to do. But many of the same people who want to cut food stamps--in fact, 2 million families out of food stamps--are the same people who are opposed to increasing the minimum wage. So it's a question of fairness. It's a question of decency. It's a question of respect for all of God's children. It's also a question of doing the right thing not only for the children but for our economy--$1.70 of economic growth injected for every $1 spent on food stamps. Now, to cut food stamps and, therefore, reduce that economic growth might be considered one of the least smart ideas that you will hear here, but there is so much competition for that designation that it just fits comfortably among initiatives to suppress the wages and to cut food stamps. It's all part of a package, and it is not a pretty sight. That's why, Mr. McGovern, your relentless, persistent, dissatisfied advocacy is such a beautiful thing in this arena where people take very lightly cutting 2 million people off of food stamps. I urge our colleagues to support the McGovern amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, do you ever wonder what the American people think when they tune into C-SPAN to see what business is being attended to on the floor of the House? Do you ever wonder what the American people think when they are saying, What is happening to create jobs? What is happening to agree to a budget that will promote growth and reduce the deficit for our country? What is happening to make progress for the American people? Do you ever wonder about that, when they tune in and see debate on bills that are going no place? Do they think, Well, here it is, just another day in the life of the Republican-controlled Congress; another day without a jobs bill, another day without a budget agreement, another day ignoring the top priorities of the American people by the Republican majority? Our constituents have made it clear time and time again we must work together to create jobs, to strengthen the middle class, and to grow the economy. Yet, once again, Republicans refuse to listen. Instead, we are debating legislation that endangers women's health and that disrespects the judgment of American women and their doctors on how to make judgments about women's health. This bill would deny care to women in the most desperate circumstances--sad and desperate circumstances. It is yet another Republican attempt to endanger women. It is disrespectful to women; it is unsafe for families; and it is unconstitutional. At the start of Congress, Republicans took great pride--and we joined them in that pride--in reading the Constitution, start to finish. It is a great day; it is a great document. Then the Republicans proceeded to ignore it. One example: this clearly unconstitutional bill. Each day, Republicans claim they want to reduce the role of government, except when it comes to women's most personal decisions about their reproductive health. Leading groups of medical professionals and experts across the country believe that this legislation is dangerous and wrong. That is the message we have seen from doctors and health care providers who have pointed out that this legislation would put medical professionals in an ``untenable position'' when treating ``women in need.'' That is the same message we've heard from national religious organizations, who have called on us to ``offer compassion, support, and respect for a woman and her family facing these difficult circumstances.'' I have a copy of a letter from 16 national religious groups that was sent to Speaker Boehner and to me, as Democratic leader, which I wish to submit for the Record. Just another day in the Republican Congress: more extremism, more dead-end bills, and less progress on the real challenges facing all Americans. The American people want bipartisanship. They want progress. They don't want obstruction and delaying tactics. Enough is enough. Let's vote ``no'' on this dangerous bill and let's get to work together to work on a fair budget that replaces the across- the-board cuts of the sequester with a plan to create jobs, grow the economy, and strengthen the middle class as we reduce the deficit. Let's act now to put people to work and strengthen the middle class. I say it over and over. Let's discard this assault on women's health and work together to make real progress for the American people. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' June 18, 2013. 16 National Religious Groups Oppose Ban on Abortion Care after 20 Weeks Hon. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, our hearts are broken, but our spirit is not. That is the Sandy Hook promise. Tomorrow marks 6 months since the tragedy in Newtown, a tragedy seared in the minds of every person across America--indeed, in the minds of millions across the world. Like the anniversaries of the shootings in Tucson, Arizona, in Oak Creek, and in so many other communities, tomorrow marks an anniversary of shock, uncertainty, violence, horror. Tomorrow marks another solemn reminder of the persistent plague of gun violence in our society and of the ongoing challenge to end it. Over the past 6 months, many words have been spoken to offer our love and support to the community of Newtown and to the students and teachers of Sandy Hook. Yet, from the start, we have known that words of comfort would never be enough, that there would be no substitute for the action that we must take that would be a truly fitting memorial to the 20 children and six teachers and administrators lost that day. Yesterday, we had visits from the families, who brought pictures of their loved ones who were lost--Daniel Barden, Lauren Rousseau, Benjamin Wheeler, Mary Sherlach, Dylan Hockley--heartbreaking photos of these children and family members who were lost. I don't know how much more motivation we need than to see the tears in their eyes and the resolve in their voices to use their grief as a source of strength to help save other people. That would start with a vote on bipartisan legislation by Congressman Mike Thompson, Congressman Peter King, and 180 cosponsors to expand and strengthen our background checks. No one knows better than the people of Newtown--the men and women, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters--who lost their loved ones on December 14, 2012. Since that dark day, the families of Newtown and their supporters have turned their sorrow into strength, their pain into perseverance, their unspeakable loss into unmatched courage and determination to carry on. Yesterday, these mothers and fathers met with both Republican and Democratic leaders. Yet they had come with no partisan agenda. They came as Americans who wished to spare their fellow parents and family members the mourning, fear and terror they felt 6 months ago. Their message is clear: honor the memories of the little children of these educators by helping to ensure that no other family is forced to endure such an unimaginable tragedy. It had been unimaginable. Now we have seen it. Now our task is plain. We must restore confidence in the safety of our communities by taking clear, effective steps to prevent gun violence in our schools, homes, and neighborhoods. I just read the names and showed the pictures of a few of the people whose lives were lost that day. For them and for others and for the lives we want to save, again I mention the bipartisan Thompson-King, King-Thompson legislation, which means to use this anniversary, certainly, to memorialize the victims of Newtown, but also to answer the call of their families to give gun violence prevention legislation a vote in the Congress of the United States. Six months ago in Newtown, a lone gunman took the lives of 26 Americans. We all know that. It's emblazoned in our minds and in our souls. Since then, nearly 5,000 more Americans have fallen victim to gun violence. Now in Congress we must summon the courage to act. We must take inspiration from the courage of the Newtown families, from the courage it has taken to turn their grief into action. We must heed the moving words of the Sandy Hook promise: our hearts are broken; our spirit is not. As we mark this anniversary, we must uphold our most basic responsibility: the oath we take--the oath of office--to protect and defend the Constitution and to protect and defend the people of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague Congresswoman Esty and our colleague Congressman Mike Thompson for their leadership in bringing us together this morning so that we cannot only remember but so that we can have the courage to act.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today, our country mourns the loss of Senator Frank Lautenberg--a man whose life embodied the American Dream and who dedicated his career to putting that dream in reach for all Americans. The longest-serving senator in New Jersey's history and the last remaining World War II veteran in the Senate, he served us all with the strength, perseverance, and compassion that exemplifies the greatest generation. A proud son of hard-working immigrants, Senator Lautenberg rose from humble beginnings to meet great success in business and public service. He was an entrepreneur who turned a small business into one of the largest computing services companies in the world. He was a soldier who put his life on the line to protect our country. He was a Senator who helped ban smoking in airplanes and around children, who worked to ensure parents could take time off to care for sick family members, who helped modernize the G.I. bill to ensure today's veterans could benefit from the same opportunity that he received, Senator Lautenberg spent each day fighting to protect and improve the health, security, and well-being of every American. His lifetime of service leaves a legacy we must follow, and an expectation we must meet. We only hope it is a comfort to his wife Bonnie, his children and grandchildren that so many mourn their loss at this sad time. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, seventy years ago, a young man was ordained as a priest of the Congregation of Holy Cross and immediately volunteered to serve as a Navy Chaplain in World War II. At the time, duty to his church and commitments to his studies prevented him from serving in the Navy. Yet earlier this year, Father Theodore Hesburgh finally realized his dream: earning recognition as an Honorary Navy Chaplain. This honor paid tribute to Father Hesburgh's extraordinary contributions--as a patriot of our country, as a leader of his Church, as a teacher and mentor, as a champion of the civil rights movement. He has been recognized by American presidents from Eisenhower to Obama. President Lyndon Johnson awarded him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom; President Clinton presented him with the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor Congress can bestow. These all paid tribute to a life that exemplified and gave meaning to the Navy Chaplain motto: ``vocati ad servitium''--``called to serve.'' It is only fitting that Father Hesburgh would be honored by the Navy, which has a rich history with Notre Dame. As he has noted in the past, during World War II, ``The Navy came in and kept us afloat until the war was over,'' using the Notre Dame campus for the Midshipmen's School, constructing drill halls and headquarters at the school, and building classrooms on the site of what is now the Hesburgh Library. Father Hesburgh was called to serve his faith and his fellow Catholics. He would take his first job at Notre Dame as chaplain for married veterans and would rise to serve as President of the University. But what he has embraced most is performing the most basic duties of a C.S.C. priest: saying mass; assisting the needy and giving voice to the voiceless; serving the poor and the abandoned, the hungry and the homeless. Father Hesburgh was called to serve the future of our country through his leadership in the field of higher education. He led Notre Dame for an incredible 35 years, yet his imprint extended further than a single campus. He demonstrated how to transform Catholic universities into exemplary institutions of higher education in modern times. He championed academic freedom and the pursuit of academic excellence. He has earned 150 honorary degrees, more than any other person in history. Father Hesburgh was called to serve to advance the cause of human dignity and justice in our society. Appointed by President Eisenhower to the Civil Rights Commission in 1957, he would shine a light on the need for voting rights in the south. He would become known as an architect of the Civil Rights Act. He would find himself standing hand- in-hand with Martin Luther King Jr. at Soldier Field in Chicago, singing ``We Shall Overcome''--a photograph of which is proudly displayed in the National Portrait Gallery. Known as ``Father Ted'' to many, he understood the purpose behind the call to service, once charging a gnpup of graduates to ``be the kind of person who not only understands the injustices of this life, but is also willing to do something about them.'' That is what Father Hesburgh has done every day for the past 70 years. His students have been inspired by his message. Our country has been blessed by his leadership. The people have been strengthened by his presence. We are all grateful that he answered the call to serve. On the 70th anniversary of his ordination and as we approach his 96th birthday, we know that Americans will long be blessed by the legacy of Father Theodore Hesburgh.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it's with great sadness that I rise today to extend sympathy to the people of Oklahoma, and especially to our colleague, Congressman Cole, and his constituents who have been affected by the tornado. We just heard our President talk about how our prayers and our deeds are with the people of the community. We also just heard Mr. Larson talk about our acting immediately to provide the assistance to the people there; and to the extent that Congress can act quickly upon that, we should. We've seen natural disasters come and go. They're all terrible. The loss of life is tragic, as well as the loss of homes and belongings. It's very hard to see how people can be made whole, but we are always hopeful that they will be. People say, Where do you find hope in a situation like that? It sits there comfortably between faith--we believe, and therefore we have hope--and the charity of others, that we can work together to come through this. Whether it's earthquakes in California, storms in the Northeast, or hurricanes in the South, like Katrina, it's always tragic. There's something especially deeply saddening about what happened in Oklahoma City. It reminded me immediately of something that I carry in my heart. I went to Italy as a representative of President Carter in 1980. It was a congressional delegation to deliver U.S. assistance following an earthquake in southern Italy. In one small town in the mountains that we visited, the roof of the church collapsed. And what was tragic about it that resembles what happened in Oklahoma is that in that church that day was the first grade. They were practicing for First Holy Communion. So every 7-year-old child in that village was a casualty. Every one died. And so when there's loss of life, of course, it's always tragic. Everyone is a valuable life. But when every 7-year-old in the village dies, it just does something to your psyche. It's so sad. You grieve so deeply. It's so hard to console people. And it's sad to see what happened to the school in Oklahoma City. Twenty little children lost their lives, each one of them precious, all of them the future of the community. How deep the grief must be there. We must try to help wipe the tears away from that community. So many little children. It was a beautiful sight to see the first responders trying to dig people out--and successfully. There was a picture today of a little boy pulled out from the rubble. Teachers made a valiant effort to cover children so that falling debris did not harm those who were still alive. And so whether it was first responders or teachers or families, it was a community coming together. This community has suffered a great loss of lives, a horrible loss of homes. What was a home became debris in a matter of minutes. And so I hope that we all know what our responsibility is, because these children are America's children. Those that died have such an impact on the community. We must all appreciate the depth of the grief, the depth of the tragedy that has befallen. I'll never, ever forget the desperate look in the eyes of the people in the village of the mountains of Italy. As I said, we're always hopeful through prayer, which gives us strength; faith, which gives us hope; and the charity of others, which helps us to go forward. So I hope it is a comfort to the people of the region that their loss is one that is shared and mourned by our entire country, definitely in this Congress of the United States, and across the world. Whatever is in our power to be helpful to them, we will do--and we will do it quickly. Most importantly, they will always and ever be in our prayers.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership and that of Mr. Levin and Mr. Waxman as the chairs of the three committees when this legislation, so transformative in the lives of the American people, was passed by the House of Representatives and now for coming to the floor today--I don't know what the word is--to even counter some of the ridiculousness that is being said on the other side of the aisle in relationship to the Affordable Care Act. The fact is that what's happening today is the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. That's what they want to do is repeal patients' rights. Why are they doing this? Do you think it's a good idea to do this on Women's Health Week, to repeal legislation that gives a wide range of free preventive services to women, protection being dropped for women when they are pregnant or when they are sick and they no longer will be charged higher premiums than men? Of course the Republicans want to repeal that today on Women's Health Week. But knowing soon that a woman will no longer be a preexisting medical condition is just one piece of it. The fact is this is not a serious effort to repeal the act. That's not going to happen. What this is is another example of jobs evasion in several ways. First of all, it is our job to come here and act for the good of the American people. Right now, the American people see that good as the creation of jobs. What is it, 134 days into this Congress and the Republican majority has yet to vote one bill out to create jobs? That's job evasion. Here we are today with yet another one of their subterfuges. Let's not talk about jobs; let's use up time. What does it add up to? Up until now, it has been $54 million and 43-some days spent on this, the 37th effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. What we should be doing is what the Republicans have asked for, regular order, to go to the budget table, to reconcile the differences between the House and the Senate so that we can put forth a budget that creates jobs, that reduces the deficit, that strengthens the middle class. Instead, we're wasting the taxpayers' dollars and time on legislation that is going to undermine protections for the American people when it comes to their health and well-being. This bill today just gives us another opportunity for our side to talk about the transformative nature of the Affordable Care Act. If there were no reason to pass such a bill, if everyone loved his or her own health care and health insurance premiums, if that were the case, we would still have had to pass the legislation because the status quo in health care in our country was unsustainable from a financial standpoint. It was unsustainable for families, for individuals, for small businesses, and for corporate America. The cost of health care was a competitiveness issue. As we try to retain our position as number one in the world--a competitive issue-- the cost of health care was rising. It certainly was unsustainable for cities, States, and the Federal Government. Our budget could not sustain the rapid increase of health care to our budget. That is why, when the Speaker asked, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office responded by informing House Republicans in a letter sent yesterday reiterating that repealing the Affordable Care Act would increase the deficit by $109 billion over the next 10 years. They said that this is a figure that they had given the Speaker last July. There may be some little changes in it between now and then, but that was approximately where the figures were. So if you want to reduce the deficit, you don't repeal the Affordable Care Act because you will increase the deficit by $109 billion over the next 10 years. The purpose of the bill was not only to improve the quality of health care, increase accessibility to many more people and to lower the cost, but that in lowering the cost, it would reduce the deficit. So it's a bill, and pretty soon many more Americans will be taking advantage of it. So far, over 100 million Americans have taken advantage of the preventive services and over 100 million Americans are no longer subjected to lifetime limits on their insurance coverage. That's a remarkable thing. Seniors who are in the doughnut hole have seen their prescription drug costs reduced by around $6 billion. Right now young people can stay on their parents' insurance policy until they're 26 years old. The list goes on and on about the preventive exams that are free to seniors. The list goes on and on about what benefits the action that the Republicans are taking today would repeal that are good for the health and well-being of the American people. This bill is not just about health care; it's about the good health of the American people. It's about prevention. It's about wellness. It's about electronic medical records that will change everything in terms of access to care and the quality of your care because your records are wherever you are. It's entrepreneurial. Our Founders, in their dedication, in their sacrifice, in their courage called for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as goals of our new Republic, of our democracy; and this bill honors the vows of our Founders in just that way--a healthier life, the liberty to pursue your happiness. If you're an artist or if you're a photographer or a writer, if you want to be self-employed, if you want to start a business, if you want to change jobs, whatever it is, you are no longer job-locked because you can only go as fast in reaching your passion and your aspirations as your health insurance program will take you. If you have a child with a preexisting medical condition, or if you're concerned with being sick yourself, you no longer are confined in your pursuit of happiness by the cost of a health care premium or the ability to even get one. It is entrepreneurial. We even see articles now, and, Mr. Chairman, you have pointed them out in the public media about young people, or not even young people, but people who want to leave companies and start their own businesses. They're waiting for this bill to be fully implemented so they have that freedom to go forth. So while I think it is a waste of the public's time to take this bill up on the floor of the House, to hear my colleagues talk on the floor, you think either they don't know what they're talking about, or they do. But in either case, they're not presenting the facts about what this legislation does. It is going to be right up there with Social Security and Medicare as pillars of economic and health security for the American people. It is going to make us more competitive internationally because our businesses will not have an anvil of the rising cost of health care. It reduces the deficit, improves the health and well-being of the American people. It's about the entrepreneurial spirit of America. It honors the vows of our Founders of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This legislation should be rejected; and pretty soon more people, as they take advantage of the legislation, will see just how important it is to them individually and how important it is to the health and well- being of our country.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly did not want to take the floor from our distinguished colleague, Connie Morella. It's so wonderful to see you. Maybe good news for you, I've lost my voice. I know it will be good news for the Speaker, but we'll see later in the day. I join him in welcoming you back to the Capitol. I hope it is always a source of joy to you to set foot on this floor, this place our Founders decided was the marketplace of ideas, where we would compete in the marketplace of ideas and find common ground to go forth. Your legacy is an important one to us. As I look around and see all of you, I see contributions that you have made over the years that we still benefit from. It's an honor to be here with Bob Michel. I think he enjoyed the job of minority leader more than I do. What do you think, Bob? What do you think? We were all there to celebrate his birthday recently. It was a bipartisan fiesta, wasn't it? That was just a couple months ago we celebrated a landmark birthday. Happy birthday again. But all of you, I heard what the Speaker said about this openness on the floor, and I thought that was really good news, because we've been trying to get a budget to the floor for a very long time but without much success to allow our budget to come to the floor. So I'm going to take the words that I just heard to Chris Van Hollen and tell him that happy days are here again and that our amendment will be made in order in the Rules Committee. Martin, Governor, Bob, all of you, we all are on a first-name basis. Last night, rightfully all of you honored the distinguished Secretary, Mr. LaHood. He has done a remarkable, remarkable job. We couldn't be prouder of him as a legislator and as a Secretary in the Cabinet even if he had been a Democrat. He's just absolutely wonderful. We love him, and he brings bipartisanship to all of what we do. And that's really what is, I think, not to get to a partisan place, Madam Chair, but is on the ballot in the next election: bipartisanship. It's something that is the most popular concept in politics. People would vote for that in overwhelming numbers; and hopefully, in this election, whatever the outcome is, bipartisanship will prevail. I always say to people that you can win an election, that's up to the public, but the idea has to prevail, and that is what we're striving to do here. That's what we hope the election will impact. It already did have an impact in the last election with immigration. All of a sudden, it became an issue near and dear to the hearts of so many more people in the Congress who never had an interest in it before, because when the people spoke in such a big way, especially Hispanics, it became a priority for many more people in the Congress. So, again, when all of you were here, we worked in a very, very civil and respectful way. We hope that we can return to that. But that doesn't diminish the contribution that you made in so many ways regarding the substance, the values, and the ethics that make our country so great. So it really is a joy to see each and every one of you. I hope your lives are very happy. You certainly look well. There seems to be a good life after Congress, but it brings us such pride to see so many of you come back to continue this bonding. Thank you. It's an honor to see you. Madam Speaker, how does it feel up there? It feels good, huh? It feels good. Welcome, Barbara. Thank you all very much for being here.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on April 27th, in Montgomery, Alabama, leaders of the civil rights movement and the Southern Poverty Law Center came together to dedicate the Mike Stoller and Corky Hale Stoller Civil Rights Memorial Theater. It is appropriate that the theater is named for Mike and Corky because of their ongoing commitment to the civil rights movement. The Stollers are two of kind--in music, in activism, in their generosity of spirit. Since the day Corky came to Mike's studio to record demos as a musician, they have been partners in every sense of the word: fighting together for liberty and justice for all, for the basic dignity of every human being. Mike and Corky's values run deep. They are tireless in their work. They are idealistic and compassionate, dedicated and determined. They know what they believe and recognize what's needed to follow through and get the job done. Thanks to their boundless energy, their beautiful relationship with one another, and their friendship with so many others, they have made a difference in advancing the cause of civil rights. At the opening of the theater dedicated in their names, we heard Chairman Emeritus of the NAACP Julian Bond's extraordinary presentation of how African Americans influenced and shaped musical history from around World War II to the days of Elvis Presley and beyond. Through the story of music, he told the story of the civil rights movement--how music popular among Americans emerged from the compositions well-known among African Americans; how the attraction of American teenagers in the 1950s to traditionally African-American styles helped advance the movement and break down barriers among races. What a fitting tribute to Mike and Corky Stoller, whose music made them famous and whose compassion made them special. When Mike joined Jerry Leiber to write ``Hound Dog,'' ``Jailhouse Rock,'' and countless other hits, he was helping sow the seeds of an effort that would connect communities through music, that would transform American culture, and that would grow with Mike and Corky's leadership for the cause of justice. Now, Mike and Corky's names will remain inscribed on the Civil Rights Memorial Theater in Montgomery. Their legacy will be intertwined with the names of the men, women, and children remembered at the memorial, who gave their lives in the cause of freedom. Their theater will stand tall alongside the Wall of Tolerance and the wheel of water that reminds us of the biblical charge to ``let justice roll down like waters, righteousness like a mighty stream.'' At this theater and across the country, may all Americans associate the names of Mike Stoller and Corky Hale Stoller with their contributions to music and their leadership for civil rights.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record opposing the GOP's deplorable Mother's Day gift--more work, less pay for working moms. No way to say Happy Mother's Day.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday morning, millions of mothers nationwide will wake up to the excited faces of their children wishing them a ``happy Mother's Day.'' Mothers will receive gifts of all kinds from their sons and daughters--tokens of love and gratitude for all that moms do every day.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is really a very unusual morning. We are here because of the refusal of the Republicans to come to the table for a conference. What is a conference? A conference is a public open meeting where differences between the House budget bill and the Senate budget bill can be reconciled. It is done with transparency and in full public view. Each side proud of our priorities, we have the American people be the judge of what is their statement of values. Afraid of that public scrutiny, the Republicans have refused to appoint conferees for a conference--conferees for a conference. We call upon the Speaker to appoint conferees so that we can have that public airing, that transparent view, of something very important. The Republican leadership has said in the House and the Senate they want the regular order. What is the regular order? The regular order is the House passes a bill; the Senate passes a bill; you go to conference. Now, afraid that their views may be rejected by the American people, they don't want to go to conference. That's why we are here this morning for sequestration. What is sequestration? Sequestration is a mindless, across-the-board cutting of what we are now recognizing--and the Republicans are recognizing--as something that should not be cut. It affects the efficiency and the safety of our airports. That's very important. Yet, as our distinguished Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer, has pointed out, there is much more that needs to be addressed instead of using this as a vehicle. One of the distinguished chairmen said earlier that the safety of our airports should not be subject to political debate. Neither should the education of our children, the nutrition for our seniors--4 million Meals on Wheels, tens of thousands of children thrown off Head Start. Our defense--mindless across-the-board cuts in our defense, and what that means for our national security and for the workers in our national security sector--the list goes on and on. Investments in our future--biomedical research, cut by this. So I suppose, if this is an example of governance, that the Republicans will next come up with something else and will say we should exempt that. Why don't we just get rid of the problem? Why don't we just get rid of the problem and go to conference? Some of the press said to me, Does this hurt your leverage in going to conference? I said, No. This is an opportunity because it demonstrates to the American people how unwise this course of action is and how much better it would be to find solutions, to get results in the regular order-- respectful of everyone's point of view but recognizing that decisions made here will have an impact, not only in the lives of the children and in the lives of their teachers and in the lives of all consumers, but on our economy as well. This should be a clarion call. It's almost ludicrous to hear my Republican colleagues get up there and talk about their individual airports. Most of us have airports. We understand what this issue is about. Why don't you understand that there is a great deal at stake, including the efficiency and the safety of our airports as well as the education of our children? How can we sit there and say 4 million Meals on Wheels for seniors, gone? But that's not important. Over 70,000 children off Head Start. But that's not important. What is important is for the Republicans to hold a hard line about the public debate about the budget that a conference would provide. The Members will vote the way they're going to vote on this, but recognize that this is not the way Congress should be meeting the needs of the American people. Let's go to conference. Mr. Speaker, appoint conferees so we can end this mindless sequestration. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished colleague, Congresswoman Sewell, for yielding. As you can see, there are many of us who are very eager. Our distinguished Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer, and I have had the privilege--he, more than I--to travel to Alabama with John Lewis. And thank you this morning for informing the Members that that's a transformative experience. Anybody who travels there and sees what happened in the lifetime of many of us here, and certainly in the lifetime of everyone's parents here, in our very own country cannot help but be moved. So I'm pleased to be joining you, Congresswoman Sewell, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Bishop, and other colleagues in coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, as we are all acknowledging, 50 years ago, on a Sunday morning, four precious little girls walked into the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, the same day they did every week. These four little girls were there for Sunday school. They were not civil rights activists; they were not agitators or advocates. They had simply come to church to learn, to pray, to be with their friends and classmates. When you visit there, you see they didn't really have a chance. They were in such close quarters when they went down those steps and the rest. These four little girls did not enter the church seeking to become symbols of the struggle of equality; yet, in a moment of brutal, horrific, unspeakable tragedy, they would become icons of a movement for justice. The names Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Wesley remain seared in the hearts and minds of us today as painful reminders of a dark moment in our history. For their families, for their friends, for their loved ones, their loss in a bombing at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church would change their world forever. Yet even at that time of great change across our country, little did we know that their deaths would change our world forever too. Among the many milestones of the civil rights movement, September 15, 1963, may be bestowed with some of the greatest pain and anguish. But it was on that day, as this resolution states: The world took notice of the violence inflicted in the struggle for equal rights. It was that day that stirred the conscience of our Nation, galvanized the forces of justice, and spurred the momentum to pass the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act--landmark steps in righting the wrongs in our country's past. It was on that day that the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church became a symbol in the cause of human rights and human dignity, from the streets of Birmingham to communities nationwide. It was that day that once again reinforced what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., just weeks earlier, called the ``fierce urgency of now.'' These four girls made the ultimate sacrifice in the battle for civil rights, joining too many fellow Americans in paying for freedom with their lives. This weekend, I will join the Southern Poverty Law Center to rename and rededicate the Civil Rights Memorial in Montgomery, Alabama. This memorial is a tribute to 40 individuals killed during the struggle. It is a place to remember the fallen, to take heed of their message, to deepen our understanding, and to renew our commitment to equal rights under the law. They were four small little children going to church--four students, four daughters, four members of a tight-knit community in Birmingham. Four lives ended too soon; four victims to the forces of hatred and prejudice, racism, and injustice. Their senseless and premature deaths ignited the fires of progress and fanned the flames of equality. I thank the gentlelady, one of our new, not brand-new, but newer Members of Congress, for coming here and joining with colleagues Mr. Bachus, Mr. Bonner, certainly John Lewis, and Members of Congress not representing Alabama, but from Alabama. As the resolution that she presents declares, the legacy that these four little Black girls left will live in the minds and hearts of all for generations to come. To honor that legacy, to cherish their memories, to inscribe their names once more in the pages of history, it is only fitting to bestow our highest civilian honor, the highest honor that Congress can bestow on a civilian, the Congressional Gold Medal, on these four Americans. That will be a glorious day in the Capitol when we all come together under the rotunda, under the dome of the Capitol, to remember them. I hope that is a comfort to their families. They gave so much. So much sprang from that, and we will always remember.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great statesman, a great Democrat and a great American, Joseph L. Wyatt, Jr. who passed away on April 15, 2013, in Pasadena, California. California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton put it best in describing Joe's essence and contribution, his commitment to our state and his work as the California Democratic Party Parliamentarian, our gratitude for his service and our fond memories of his extraordinary life, saying in a statement: California Democrats lost one of the closest members of our Democratic family in California. Joe Wyatt, Jr. who served as our Party's parliamentarian since 1970 passed at the age of eighty-nine. To know Joe was to know first and foremost a kind and wonderful human being. He was also a committed husband, father, grandfather, and Democratic activist. Joe was a founder of the California Democratic Council (CDC), a federation of local volunteer Democratic clubs that helped reinvigorate statewide Democratic politics in California and was instrumental in the election of Pat Brown as California governor in the election of 1958. He was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention on numerous occasions. He was a committed activist in the truest sense of the word, tirelessly serving our state party and always offering sage and fair counsel on the rules and procedures needed to advance party business. For over 50 years he practiced trust and estate law for three law firms, most recently as Senior of Counsel to Morrison/Foerster LLP, since 1995. It was a privilege to know and work with such a deeply principled, humble, accomplished, and exemplary human being. All of us will always remember his signature bow-tie, his wonderful wit, his kind heart and unwavering spirit. His life has been a gift to all who knew him; his memory will be a blessing for all who remember him. I only hope it is a comfort to his wife Marjorie, his sons Jonathan, Daniel and Lawrence, his daughter Linn, his daughter-in-law Tamara, and his grandchildren Jack and Taryn, that so many share in their grief at this sad time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, today the Internet and new technologies are shaping a world that we could scarcely have imagined even 10 years ago. It's giving Americans an easy way to build friendships, build business, and participate in democracy, all with the click of a button. But because so much of our daily lives are invested in cyberspace, it only takes one more click to put our personal identities, our economic stability, and our national security at risk. The threat of a cyber attack on our country is real, and our response must always balance our security with our liberties. That has always been the case in the history of America, the balance between liberty and security. There can be absolutely no doubt or delay in shoring up our Nation's cybersecurity. We must take clear, responsible, effective action to enhance the security of the American people. I want to commend Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger, working together in a bipartisan way, for their leadership on this issue and their efforts to craft and try to improve this legislation. I want to thank Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson on the Homeland Security Committee for their energetic leadership on this subject as well. I thank both committees for recognizing the jurisdiction of the other committee. I had hoped that today we would be addressing some major concerns of Members of Congress and the White House by improving the legislation's protections of personal information. With all of the respect in the world for the work of our chairs and ranking members on this, and it has been considerable. You have standing on this issue that is recognized and respected. I am disappointed, however, that we did not address some of the concerns, as I mentioned, of the White House about personal information. Unfortunately, this bill offers no policies, did not allow any amendments--and I don't put that to you, no amendments--and no real solutions that adequately uphold an American's right to privacy. For one thing, in promoting the sharing of cyber threat information, the bill does not require the private sector to minimize irrelevant personally identifiable information from what it shares with the government, or other private matters. They can just ship the whole kit and caboodle. We are saying minimize what is relevant to our national security; the rest is none of the government's business. The bill continues to offer overly broad liability protections and immunities to the businesses that could violate our liberties rather than offering more targeted liabilities to ensure that the private sector only shares appropriate information. We thought there might be a way to get this done by amendment--I'm sure that it would enjoy bipartisan support--but the Rules Committee did not allow that amendment to come forward. Most importantly, the bill fails to critically address the greatest weakness in our cybersecurity: our Nation's infrastructure. Too many of our country's systems, both physical and virtual, are still exposed to an increasing number of intrusions and attacks. Now, as a longtime former member of the Intelligence Committee, I know that infrastructure is not your jurisdiction, so in your original bill you couldn't go to that place. But now the Rules Committee could have allowed, with the cooperation of the Homeland Security Committee, us to go into infrastructure. If we're truly going to secure a reliable and resilient cyberspace that reflects our country's values, we must target our clearest vulnerabilities, while preserving a space that promotes the innovation, expression, and security of the American people. The world we live in and the threats our country faces can change with just one click. While we should never let Americans doubt our vigilance, our preparation, our effectiveness, we must never let us compromise their civil liberties. If we fail to meet the standard of security, we always do more harm than good. I, myself, am personally going to vote ``no'' on this legislation but, in doing so, salute the chairs and ranking members of the committees for taking us way down the road on this issue. It's just that crucial balance between security and liberty that I do not think has been struck in that bill. So, for my own part, it will not have my support.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 84, the Scott of VA Substitute amendment to H. Con. Res. 25, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him, Mr. Chairman, for his tremendous, tremendous leadership and giving us an opportunity in the House today to vote on a budget that is a reflection of American values--values of work and jobs, promoting them, a value of fairness, a value of advancing the success of America's families. I thank him for giving us a budget--I think we can all be the judge-- where we say that a budget is a statement of our national values. What is important to us as a Nation is a place where we allocate our resources. This budget is in stark absolute contrast to the Republican budget that is on the floor today. Contrast number one: jobs. The Republican bill, the Ryan Republican budget, is a job killer. Nearly 2 million jobs lost right out of the gate, and more lost after that; whereas the Van Hollen Democratic substitute is a job creator. It invests in rebuilding the infrastructure of America. It invests in innovation, energy, and education. Speaking of infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers has given us a D in terms of the condition of the infrastructure in our country. So the need is there. This budget recognizes that need, but it also does so in a way that creates jobs in a very innovative way. It is in strong contrast when it comes to fairness, fairness as to how we, again, establish our priorities to invest in education, rather than continue to give tax breaks, loopholes that are unnecessary, unworthy of a values budget that the Republican budget continues. And in terms of our seniors, the contrast could not be greater. The Ryan budget, in 10 years there will be no Medicare guarantee--flat out, absolutely. There will be no Medicare guarantee. In the meantime--in the meantime--the Ryan budget takes the resources that we have in the health care reform bill, repeals the bill, and takes the money and runs to give it to his priorities, rather than strengthening Medicare and keeping it strong for a longer period of time, keeping the benefits that are in the Affordable Care Act, prevention and wellness services right from the start, closing the prescription drug doughnut hole, and the list goes on. I listened intently to the gentlelady speak about our high school 18- year-old seniors and where they'll be when they're 28 years old. And since young people are always used as sort of a point of discussion, and rightfully so--we're here to provide for their future--I think it's important to listen to what they have to say. And the young people that have passed through the Capitol--as you know, many do--I frequently invite them to sit down and tell me what they would like us to say at the table of the discussion of the budget--especially when it comes to them--because we always say we cannot heap mountains of debt on the next generation. I fully agree. That is why I support the Van Hollen budget. These young people say, We want a strong education system, a strong public education system. We need student loans that are affordable. We need Pell Grants. We need our families to be able to focus on us, and so we need Medicare and Medicaid so that our grandparents' health needs are met. For a long time to come, they hope, loving their grandparents. But these young people want to be helpful in solving the budget crisis. That's what they have told us: We want to do our share. The initiative that brings more money to the Federal Treasury is education--education, early childhood, K-12, higher education, post- grad, all the rest of that lifetime learning. Nothing brings more money to the Treasury than educating the American people, and that is why investing in education, creating jobs, that brings revenue. It's hard to see why we would put forth a budget that stunts the growth of jobs, the growth of our economy with jobs and our investments in education. On the subject of education, tens of billions of dollars are struck in the Ryan Republican anti-job bill, in that job-killer bill, tens of billions of dollars. They say, it's better to give a tax break to a special interest than to invest in the education of our children. Would that be a statement of your national values if you were writing a budget for our country? I don't think so. It certainly was not a statement of the values of the young people who have come through here saying how they would help solve the budget deficit challenge we face. We all know the deficit must be reduced. We've known it for a long time. We've recognized it for a long time. President Clinton recognized it and took us on a path of soundness. It was totally reversed in the Bush years when our Republican colleagues didn't say a word. They said, no problem; it's the appropriate percentage of GDP. No problem with the deficit. They never complained about it. But now, with their initiatives, the Ryan Republican job-killer budget is making matters worse in terms of reducing the deficit because it deprives our economy of the very initiatives that would create growth, the education of our people, lifetime learning for the American people. Investments in education, as I said, nothing brings more money. Investments in jobs, whether it's infrastructure, energy, innovation-- absent in the Ryan Republican job-killer budget. Medicare, so important to the stability of America's working families, the provisions in the Affordable Care Act that affect Medicare have already demonstrated that it is halting the rapid increase in the cost of health care spending, and so that is what has enabled the CBO to say, with more promise, that we can use a different baseline to reduce the deficit, and that has been used in the Republican budget. So I urge my colleagues to think about the kitchen tables of people in our country. We sit at a table here and have these discussions. What's really important is how the decisions we make here, what we think, and how that relates to the challenges they face, the education of their children, are they going to be able to keep their home, keep their job, keep their pension, all of this heaped one on top of another of concerns. And the economic and health security of our seniors not only has an impact on them, the seniors, but on their families. And if we're going to be true to those young people, those 18-year olds, we must recognize how important their education is, but also, how important caring for their grandparents is to the economic success of their entire family. I'll end where I began. The most important part of all of this is this issue of jobs, jobs, jobs, and the fairness in our budget to promote jobs and to reduce the deficit for the success of America's families. The choice is clear: Job-killer Ryan Republican budget bill, job- creator Van Hollen substitute bill. I urge my colleagues to support the Van Hollen bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Lowey, for her leadership and for yielding time on this important debate. I listened, too, attentively to Mr. Frelinghuysen and the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I heard Mr. Frelinghuysen say how awful sequestration would be. And I completely concur with him on that. I also heard him say nothing in this bill does anything on sequestration. Well, if it does not, why is it in the bill? Is it to get votes on the Republican side because there's not the support for the investments that were called for in the Budget Control Act? If that's the case, let's be clear about it and put it forth. But if it has nothing to do with sequestration, Mr. Frelinghuysen, why is it in the bill? Is it a waste of time and space? Is it a topic of discussion that is fruitless because it has nothing to do with sequestration but it's in there because it sends a very serious message? And why are we in this place? We're in this place, the Chamber of the House of Representatives, to represent the American people. We recognize that a thriving middle class is the backbone of our democracy and that we are here to meet the needs of the American people and strengthen that democracy. With the legislation that is before us today, we undermine all of those efforts. With the sequestration, which is reaffirmed in this legislation, we go down a path that is harmful to our economy and harmful to our national security. Don't take it from me. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress last week on more than one occasion that cuts of this size made this quickly would hurt hiring and incomes, slow the recovery, cost the economy 750,000 jobs, and keep deficits larger than otherwise. Why are we in this place? We're in this place because the Republicans have said that they would not close any tax loopholes except to lower rates--not to lower the deficit, but to lower rates. Because they will not close any loopholes to reduce the deficit, we have to reduce the deficit in other ways. For example, they will not close the loophole for tax breaks for corporate jets. Instead, they want to cut 4 million Meals on Wheels. Instead of closing loopholes for Big Oil, they want to cut investments in little children's education. Instead of closing tax loopholes for corporations that send jobs overseas--that's my personal favorite, tax cuts for corporations that send jobs overseas--they want to lose 750,000 jobs here in our country. Instead of ensuring that millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share, our military readiness will be impaired and health care for our military families could be cut. On a personal basis, we have teachers educating children of our military families who will be harmed by this. We have psychiatric nurses who meet the needs of our returning vets with PTSD and other challenges who may be furloughed because of this. What do we say to them? Oh, it's more important for us to have loopholes for tax breaks for corporate jets and millionaires and billionaires to send jobs overseas and the rest of it? We had an opportunity to today in our previous question to bring to the floor the proposal advanced by Mr. Chris Van Hollen, our ranking member on the Budget Committee. Mr. Van Hollen's proposal is responsible and fair and it is balanced. It cuts spending responsibly. It ends unnecessary tax breaks for special interests, some of which I just named, and advances the Buffett rule, ensuring that millionaires pay their fair share. I mention it because it's yet, again, another time where the Republicans on at least four occasions shut down the opportunity to debate an alternative to what the Republicans are proposing. And this is on top of all that we've already agreed to. Many of us in a bipartisan way voted for the Budget Control Act, which cut $1.2 trillion in spending. That was in addition to over $300 billion already cut last year. That is in addition to the President and Members of Congress saying we are prepared to make further cuts in waste, fraud, and abuse. And some things are not wasteful. Maybe they're just not a priority anymore or we found a better way to do it. Maybe they're duplicative or obsolete. But, nonetheless, we can't afford them anymore. So let's subject every dollar to harsh scrutiny; but we also have to subject to scrutiny all the spending on these tax breaks, because that is spending. When you give a subsidy to Big Oil of $38 billion as an incentive to drill, you are spending the taxpayers' dollars. Let's cut that spending, too. Now, what's interesting about this is that, in what the Republicans are supporting, they are totally out of sync with the American people. Republicans across our country are opposed to the corporate jet loophole. They want to close the corporate jet loophole. And Republicans, by majority, support that. They want to eliminate oil and gas tax breaks. Republicans, by majority, support eliminating that. Republicans across the country say we should limit deductions for millionaires and billionaires. Republicans, of course, say we should end tax breaks for corporations to send jobs overseas. The list goes on. Republicans, by majority, support the Buffett rule. Even some Republicans in the Senate say we must look at closing some of these loopholes--not just to lower rates for corporate America, but in order to lower the deficit--instead of going to our children, our seniors, our workers and all the rest to make those cuts. So we are in a situation here today that is created not because the Republicans passed two bills last year. I know the gentlemen speaking on the floor know that last year is over. That Congress has ended. Those bills have no weight. The spending cuts that we agreed to last year are for over 10 years. The bills that the Republicans passed last year ended at the end of the last Congress. How to make a law? Just read the book. I realize that you would hardly recognize that civics lesson if you see what's happening on the floor here today and over the last period of time. But I have enormous, enormous respect for the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. We sat on that committee together for a number of years. I appreciate that he wanted to bring a bill to the floor that honors the Budget Control Act. I disagree with the tactic of putting a reinforcement of a sequester into law. It exists. We have to do the sequester unless we can head it off, unless the safety of our troops and their training, our national security, the education of our children, the safety of our neighbors, unless that takes precedence over protecting tax breaks for corporate jets, businesses that send jobs overseas--the list goes on, and I have mentioned it now more than one time. So I urge my colleagues to think carefully about this vote. This isn't a vote to shut down government or not. That vote will come at another time. The Senate isn't going to accept this bill. The Senate is not going to accept this bill. When they don't, they will send back another bill. And we'll just see how many votes are on the Republican side to keep government open, because we have absolutely no intention of having the government shut down. We will just see how many Republican votes there are for that, for a bill that will be a better bill than this. Although, with the threat of sequester and what that will do to our economy--and our job creation and our reducing of the deficit--that's one thing; but think of what it does in the lives of those 4 million meals not delivered to seniors. Think of those seniors who are not getting those meals, those children who are not getting Head Start--or even beyond Head Start, the education of our children. Some of them are being educated by teachers who are teaching children of military families who will now have to lose their jobs or be furloughed. This has an impact right to the kitchen table of the American people. So we have to think very seriously about what we are doing here. But whatever we do, let's just have it be on the level, Mr. Speaker. Let's have it be on the level. This is a bill that reinforces the sequester; if it didn't, it wouldn't be in the bill. So this bill, I think, has no merit, and it will not have my support.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for giving me this opportunity to support his proposal, the Chris Van Hollen proposal, as our ranking member on the Budget Committee, a proposal that is fair, responsible, and balanced. Mr. Van Hollen has put forth an initiative that cuts spending responsibly, ends unnecessary and wasteful tax breaks for special interests, and advances the Buffett rule, ensuring that millionaires pay their fair share. I think it is really important to note, as he did, that this will be yet another time we are coming to the floor asking for the Republican leadership to allow a vote in what they boast of as an open Congress, open to other ideas, that has blocked over and over again the mere consideration of Mr. Van Hollen's proposal on the floor. Instead, today, we are engaged in subterfuge. What can we do instead of doing what we really need to do and make it look as if we are doing something responsible? Yes, okay, let's get the calculation. But let's reduce that deficit. Let's reduce that deficit. And it is important to note that this debate happens in a week that we will be taking up the continuing resolution. It has been 4 days since the sequester went into effect. The continuing resolution that the Republicans are putting forth is a bill that reinforces the sequestration. So what does that do? The Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, told Congress last week that cuts of this size, made this quickly, would hurt hiring and incomes, slow the recovery, cost the economy 750,000 jobs this year, and keep deficits larger than otherwise. So we are not reducing the deficit by what is really happening on the major legislation coming to this floor last week and this week in terms of sequester and continuing resolution. That is what we should be doing--figuring out a way to get rid of the sequestration. What does sequestration mean? Whatever its Latin roots, it equals job loss--750,000 by the estimate of the chairman of the Fed. And what is the point of all of this? There is an answer. We already have agreed in the continuing resolution--the President and the Congress have agreed to $1.2 trillion in spending cuts. We all recognize we must reduce the deficit. We have all agreed to spending cuts of that magnitude. That was in addition to $400 billion of other spending cuts in the last term of Congress. So $1.6 trillion in spending cuts, which dwarfs the $600 billion, as significant as that is, in the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of last year. But we need more revenue, and there is a place to get it. Our distinguished Speaker said there is $100 billion in tax loopholes that could be closed. I think there is more than that, but many of the deductions that we would want people to take to strengthen the middle class I think we should separate out from what the Republicans want to do. The Republicans in Congress are protecting tax loopholes and wasteful spending in the Tax Code, which increases the deficit instead of solving problems. Instead of closing tax loopholes for Big Oil, the Republicans want cuts for little children in Head Start--Big Oil over little children. Instead of closing tax loopholes for corporations that ship jobs overseas, 750,000 jobs will be lost here because of the sequester and the continuing resolution that contains the sequester, which is a fix that we're in because of the refusal of the Republican leadership to close those loopholes. Instead of ensuring millionaires pay their fair share, our military readiness will be impaired. We have kids who won't get the proper training when they're put into harm's way unless the Defense Department can reprogram the money; and health care for America's military families will be cut. So there is an answer to all of this, and that is that we need to stop the spending in our Tax Code. Everybody talks about reducing spending, as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do, and we all agree that we need to reduce it. That's why the $1.6 trillion in spending cuts, and we can try to find more. But why can't we stop the spending on the Tax Code, the spending of tax giveaways? They're called ``tax expenditures.'' They cost the taxpayer. If you are so concerned about how much the deficit is costing every individual American, why don't we calculate how much the tax break is for Big Oil, corporations sending jobs overseas--the list goes on and on--and how much those tax expenditures cost America's working families. They do so by increasing the deficit and by not creating jobs in our own country. Again, there is an answer here. To be hopeful, we can come together to say, okay, we all agree: let's reduce the deficit, cut spending, make some changes--those that we can--without hurting beneficiaries in mandatory spending. But why are these tax loopholes for special interests such sacred cows for the Republicans, such sacred cows that they will not even allow Mr. Van Hollen's bill to come to the floor? Are they afraid of the debate? Are they afraid of the outcome of their vote? With that, I thank the gentleman again for his leadership and for putting forth a balanced, fair proposal to reduce the deficit in order to avoid sequestration, which we didn't, and as a counter to what the Republicans are putting forth. It's more than a counter. It's about leadership. It's about what is possible if we can work together in a bipartisan way to get the job done for the American people. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), who has been a champion for ending violence against women for all women in America.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, when Congress enacted the original Violence Against Women Act nearly two decades ago, we sent a very clear and immediate message to the American people: no--and I emphasize ``no''--woman would ever be forced to suffer in silence in the face of abuse. No one would ever be forced to fear for their lives and their safety in their own homes because of domestic violence. That promise formed the foundation of our work then, and it has served as a cornerstone for our efforts in the years since to reauthorize and strengthen this landmark law. Even as the times have changed, our commitments have remained the same, and strong, yet over the years we have always sought out ways to improve this legislation. Today on the floor of the House we will have a very clear choice. We have the choice to support the bipartisan legislation that has passed in the United States Senate. It passed 78- 22. Seventy-eight percent of the Senate voted for this legislation. A majority of the Republicans in the Senate supported this legislation. All of the women in the Senate--Democrats and Republicans alike-- support the bipartisan legislation that I hope we will have an opportunity to vote on today on the floor of the House. In contrast, we have the House Republican proposal, which, while described in such lovely terms, is a step backward for the women in America and those who suffer domestic violence or sexual assault. It's really hard to explain why, what eyes are the Republicans looking through, that they do not see the folly of their ways on this legislation that they are proposing. Not only is it much weaker than the Senate bill; it is much weaker than current law. And that is why whatever groups you want to name, whether it's 1,300 groups opposed from A to Y--we don't have a Z--any groups that have anything to do with this matter throughout our country, in every State, oppose the Republican legislation that is on the floor today. This is what the American Bar Association has stated in its letter to Members in opposition to the Republican bill. It says: The House substitute eliminates certain critical improvements and actually rolls back some provisions of the law that have been successful. So let's understand the difference between these two pieces of legislation that are on the floor today. Our bill, again, a reflection of the bipartisan bill in the Senate, says to all American women: you will be protected. The Republican bill says to the women of America: we want to protect America's women, everybody step forward--who is an American woman. Not so fast if you're from the immigrant community, if you are a Native American, or if you happen to be part of the LGBT community. It's just not right. America has always been, and our Constitution demonstrates, a country of expanding opportunity, protection, and diminishing discrimination. And today on the floor of the House, the Republican bill discriminates against a woman if she is lesbian or gay or whatever, LGBT, a member of that community; discriminates against a woman if she lives on a reservation and has been assaulted by someone not from the reservation; discriminates against women in terms of their immigration status--exactly the women who are the most vulnerable and who are in situations where there's a power over them, whether it's immigration law or whatever. The most in need of this bill are excluded by the Republican--the Republican proposal. So this Republican proposal is nothing to be proud of. It must be defeated, and its defeat will enable us to bring to the floor the Senate's bipartisan, overwhelmingly passed and supported legislation which strengthens current law, not weakens it, and expands the legislation which was passed. It has not been a bipartisan issue. I was here when the bill passed before. I saw the great work of Pat Schroeder and of Louise Slaughter, who argued so beautifully for this legislation yesterday as the ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee. I salute the work of Joe Biden, who was really the author. Without Vice President Biden, at that time there would not have been a Violence Against Women Act. I am so proud of the work of our chairman, a leader on this legislation then and now, Chairman John Conyers, former chair of the Judiciary Committee, now- ranking member. We will be hearing more from him shortly. He has been there steady and strong as a champion in the fight to end violence against women. Thank you. Our legislation today, the Democratic proposal, is really a bipartisan proposal from the Senate that is authored and presented by Congresswoman Gwen Moore of Wisconsin. Congresswoman Gwen Moore has shared her own personal story with us. The strength of her knowledge of the issue, whether it's knowledge of the legislation or knowledge of the trauma of domestic violence and assault, is something that has impressed so many of us. And when we pass this legislation--and we will--it will be in large measure because of her leadership, her persistence, her wisdom, her knowledge of this issue and the difference that every word in the legislation means in the homes of America and for women who are at risk. Now, who thinks this is a good idea? I don't know. I hear the gentlewoman, who commands great respect in this body, describe this bill as if it is a good thing. It is not. Why does this take so long? It has been over 500 days, Madam Speaker, 500 days, my colleagues, since the expiration of the Violence Against Women Act. Last spring, almost 1 year ago, April of last year, the Senate, in a bipartisan way, passed the Violence Against Women Act--in a bipartisan way. Months have gone by with no reauthorization. Congress ended. A new Congress came in, and the Senate, once again voted--and again in a strong, bipartisan way--for legislation. The House Republicans want to be odd man out on this, or odd person out on this, and have a bill that weakens current law as well as does not rise to the occasion of changing times that the Senate bill does. Others of my colleagues will go into more of the specifics of it. It's just too much to put into the Record of all of the groups who oppose the House bill. It is almost unanimous. The only people who were holding out were those who were hopeful that something, that light would be shed on this, on the Republican side of the aisle. But this is a remarkable day because we have clarity. And between the two proposals that are coming forth, one of them has the support of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, Democrats in the House, and the President of the United States stands ready to sign it. The other is opposed by almost everybody that has anything to do with addressing the challenge of violence against women, and we have the documentation to prove that without going into the specifics. I just want to say how proud I am of Congresswoman Gwen Moore. She comes from Wisconsin, and she is a respected leader in the House. She has made this, I would say, her life's work. But she has a number of things on her agenda. She has made a tremendous difference, not only in terms of this legislation, but more importantly in terms of what it means, what it means in the lives of America's women--all of America's women. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, the champion on fighting violence against women, Congresswoman Moore.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington State, Congresswoman DelBene.