Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an American leader, a true pioneer, and my dear friend, Peg Yorkin, on the occasion of her 90th birthday. As a Co-Founder and Chair of the Feminist Majority Foundation, Peg has been a tremendously effective and tireless advocate for women's rights, setting an inspiring example for women across the United States and around the globe. Peg Yorkin's visionary leadership and extraordinary generosity have made the Feminist Majority one of the most formidable partners in enacting groundbreaking legislation for women and families for over four decades. Strengthened by Peg's bold vision, the Feminist Majority's achievements include the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which contained a provision for monetary damages to women who win sexual harassment lawsuits; the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; the Violence Against Women Act, and many more. The breadth of Peg's accomplishments is truly remarkable. In addition to her work with the Feminist Majority, Peg has provided outstanding support to a variety of other praiseworthy women's causes including Voters for Choice, the Rape Foundation, and the Sojourn Center for Abused Women. Peg has helped to advance women's access to reproductive health care in America and drawn the world's attention to the plight of women and girls in Afghanistan. Peg's leadership has spotlighted the vast potential of the national and global empowerment of women. With each day that passes, Peg's legacy continues to impact women everywhere as the march for women's economic, social, and political progress continues. It is my great honor to join Peg's children and grandchildren, her many friends, my colleagues in the House of Representatives, and women everywhere, in wishing Peg a happy 90th birthday--and many more years to come.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wish Rich Rimkunas congratulations for his many long years of service to Congress. Rich Rimkunas has had a career filled with outstanding achievement at the Congressional Research Service. After nearly 37 years of service, Rich will be retiring from CRS on Friday, April 28th. When Rich joined CRS in 1980, he was an analyst working on a broad array of social policy issues. Initially, he worked on such issues as child nutrition, poverty, social security, social services for the aged, and unemployment insurance. Rich co-created and co-authored a widely circulated CRS report on federal social welfare spending. He was also a co-author and contributor to several chapters in the House Ways and Means Committee print Children in Poverty, which provided a detailed look at the incidence and characteristics of child poverty in the United States. Rich ultimately became heavily involved in providing research and analytical support to the Congress on many health policy issues, including analyses of aggregate national health expenditures, the Medicare hospital prospective payment system, the Medicare Advantage program, and Medicare catastrophic drug costs. Additionally, he has worked on numerous issues related to Medicaid. He both directed a team of CRS analysts as well as contributed his own analysis to the Medicaid ``Yellow Book,'' a 1988 House Ways and Means Committee print that provided a comprehensive analysis of the Medicaid program as it existed at the time. Rich also managed the 1993 update of the ``Yellow Book.'' Rich's analyses have typically involved quantitative research methodologies, modeling techniques, and the use of complex databases. Rich has excelled at developing approaches for simulating the effects of potential changes to federal benefits and grant allocation formulas. In addition to the direct impact his research and analytical work has had on federal policies, Rich has made equally important contributions within CRS in managerial roles. During his tenure at CRS, he has served as Section Research Manager (SRM) of the Methodology Section, the Research Development Section, the Research Development and Income Support Section, and the Health Insurance and Financing Section. During his tenure as an SRM, Rich helped manage CRS work on the 1996 welfare reform law and the 2003 overhaul of Medicare in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. Rich helped manage an inter-disciplinary team numbering about 3 dozen CRS analysts that provided legislative support during the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Throughout his career, Rich has served as a role model for the highest level of CRS service to Congress, upholding the Service's standards of authoritativeness, objectivity and confidentiality. He is known within CRS for his attention to detail, methodological strength, and creative approaches toward conducting analyses. His input is sought on a great many research efforts spanning virtually all of the major domestic social policy issue areas that Congress deals with. Rich is renowned for his tremendous work ethic and energizing presence. Those who have worked closely with him appreciate his ability to keep his sense of humor even during the most stressful times. In recent years, Rich has served as the Deputy Assistant Director of CRS's Domestic Social Policy Division. In that role he has mentored and helped develop many of the division's managers, analysts and research assistants. He has also played a central role in reviewing written work produced by the division, helping to ensure its accuracy, completeness and quality. Moreover, in his work as a division manager, Rich has served on numerous advisory panels that have recommended organizational practices and policies for CRS, many of which have been adopted. Rich's policy expertise has been broadly recognized. He is regularly sought for his expertise at professional meetings and conferences. He was nominated to the National Academy of Social Insurance in 2002 and has served on the steering committee of the National Health Forum. He has also been recognized with numerous Library of Congress Special Achievement Awards. Rich has devoted nearly his entire distinguished professional career to supporting the work of the Congress and to helping build and strengthen CRS and forward its mission. Congratulations to him, and I wish him many long and happy years in retirement.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my five children and my nine grandchildren and everyone I know, as a matter of fact, I thank the gentleman for being a champion for privacy for the American people. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle) for his leadership. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for his leadership. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) has been a champion on this issue as well. Mr. Speaker, Americans turn to the internet for so many things these days: buying books, filing taxes, learning about why they are feeling sick. The Republicans want this information to be sold without your permission: the websites you visit, the apps you use, your search history, the content of your emails, your health and financial data. Overwhelmingly, the American people do not agree with the Republicans that this information should be sold, and it certainly should not be sold without your permission. Our broadband providers know deeply personal information about us and our families: where we are, what we want, what we are looking for, what information we want to know, every site we visit, and more. Our broadband providers can even track us when we are surfing in private, browsing in a private browsing mode. Americans' private browser history should not be up for sale. Yet Republicans are bringing S.J. Res. 34 to the floor to allow internet service providers to profit--to profit; this is about profit--from America's most intimate personal information without our knowledge or our consent. Republicans' use of the Congressional Review Act will do permanent damage to the FCC's ability to keep Americans' personal information safe. As FCC Commissioner Clyburn and FTC Commissioner McSweeny warned: ``This legislation will frustrate the FCC's''--the Federal Communications Commission's--``future efforts to protect the privacy of voice and broadband customers.'' It is important for our constituents to know that, if the Republicans had a problem with this particular policy, they might tweak it and say we don't like it this way or that in regular legislation so that we could have a debate on it. It could go back to the Federal Communications Commission. They could revise it and send it back if it were a legitimate presentation of concerns. But it is not about a legitimate presentation of concerns. It is about increasing profits at the expense of the privacy of the American people. So, as I say, the Republicans' use of the Congressional Review Act does permanent damage and also damages the FCC's ability to keep America's personal information safe. With this measure, Republicans would destroy Americans' right to privacy on the internet--we made that clear--and forbid any effort to keep your personal information safe. Republicans are bending over backwards. Think of it. Think of the context of all of this. Since Gerald Ford was President, every candidate for President, every nominee of a major party, every candidate for President of the United States, Democrat and Republican, has released their income tax returns out of respect for the American people--out of respect for the American people. Week in and week out--in fact, sometimes day in and day out--in committee as well as on the floor, the Republicans have kept the President's income tax returns private when the public has a right to know that, that the public has always known that about every President since Gerald Ford--in fact, since Richard Nixon; although, in his case, it wasn't voluntary. So while they are hiding President Trump's tax returns, some discrete piece of information that the public has a right to know, they are selling your most personal, selling your most personal and sensitive information--again, your browsing history, your children's location, everything--to anyone with the money to buy it. Incognito tabs or private browsing modes will not protect you from the internet service providers watching and selling, as Mr. Capuano pointed out, watching and selling. Republicans have picked the week after Russian spies were caught hacking into half a billion American email accounts to open the floodgates, overturning the requirement that internet service providers keep their sensitive data secured from cybercriminals. The American people deserve to be able to insist that intimate details and information about their browser history be kept private and secure. So how is this? We have this magnificent technology that science has made available to people to facilitate commerce, to learn about different subjects, to privately pursue, in a way that they may not even want their families to know, what symptoms they have and what illness that might tell them about. Most Americans have no or limited choices for broadband providers and no recourse against these invasions of their privacy because, with this measure, Republicans turn their back on the overwhelming number of Americans who want more control over their internet privacy. Americans can choose who represents them in Congress. Americans are paying close attention. They want to know who is taking a stand with them in opposing efforts to sell the private information of the American people. This is staggering. This is almost a surrender. If the Republicans are allowed to do this, we have surrendered all thoughts of privacy for the American people. Privacy is a value that the American people treasure. It is about their dignity. It is about their dignity. We cannot allow the Republicans to sell the dignity of the American people. I hope that everyone will vote ``no'' on this most unfortunate assault on the dignity of the American people.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on March 25, 1966--51 years ago, this past Saturday--Dr. King spoke these words: ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and the most inhuman because it often results in physical death.'' We came to this floor to fight TrumpCare last week with the moral force of Dr. Martin Luther King's words in our heart. Affordable health care is a civil right; a fundamental right for every American. As we remember Dr. King's wisdom, as we debated this bill: we did so in tribute to our colleague Bobby Rush's late wife, Carolyn Rush. Carolyn was active in the civil rights movement, and she was a champion for Americans' health care. Her funeral was Saturday, the 51st anniversary of Dr. King's words. We were proud to honor Carolyn Rush's memory by saving the Affordable Care Act from repeal and protecting the health of the American people. Speaker Ryan 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. 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.'' As the United Methodist Church said, opposing TrumpCare: ``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 says 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.'' Rather than an act of mercy, TrumpCare is a moral monstrosity that will devastate seniors, children and hard-working Americans. I grant our Republican friends their position. I respect them and their constituents who sent them here. But I do not accept the wrong priorities in TrumpCare--tax cuts for the rich at the expense of tens of millions of working families across America. TrumpCare spotlights the difference in the priorities of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress--whether we in Congress believe in a public role in meeting the needs of the American people. It is about governance itself. Trumpcare is consistent with the Ryan budget that destroys the Medicare guarantee. It is a step forward in the long- standing Republican belief that Medicare should ``wither on the vine;'' that Medicaid should be shrunken; that Social Security should be privatized. If you believe we have a role and a responsibility to protect the health and wellbeing of the American people, you must reject the bill before us now. Here's how TrumpCare hurts the American people: 1. Higher Costs--TrumpCare forces families to pay higher premiums and deductibles, increasing out-of-pocket costs. 2. Less Coverage--TrumpCare will take away health care from 24 million hard-working Americans. 3. Key Protections Gutted--TrumpCare eradicates Essential Health Benefits, such as maternity, prescription drug and emergency coverage-- functionally destroying protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions. 4. A Crushing Age Tax--TrumpCare forces Americans aged 50-64 to pay premiums five times higher than what others pay for health coverage, no matter how healthy they are. 5. Steals from Medicare--TrumpCare shortens the life of the Medicare Trust Fund and ransacks funds that seniors depend on to get the long- term care they need. Republicans' bill would increase costs and cut coverage for millions of Americans, while leaving coverage for Members of Congress untouched. And as bad as TrumpCare was already, in the middle of the night Republicans made it even worse. TrumpCare would make being a woman a pre-existing condition again. Stripping guaranteed maternity care is a pregnancy tax, pure and simple. Under Trumpcare, Americans will be forced to pay extra for hospital coverage; prescription drug coverage; rehab, pregnancy, maternity, newborn and pediatric care. When Republicans eradicate essential health benefits, they are destroying the protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions--no matter if they are covered through the marketplace or their employer. If Republicans have their way, 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 and nearly 2 million jobs will be destroyed across America. Millions of veterans will lose access to tax credits for health care. All of this to give another massive tax for the richest in America. TrumpCare is a billionaire's tax cut disguised as a health care bill. It is Robin Hood in reverse--one of the largest transfers of wealth from working families to the rich in our history. We honor the vision of our founders, who risked everything to advance the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; a healthier life, and the liberty to pursue your happiness. Today, as we fight to preserve affordable health care as the right of every American, not a privilege for the few, we fight for children like Zoe Madison Lihn. Zoe was born with a congenital heart defect in May 2010. She faced her first--of three heart surgeries--at 15 hours old. By six months old, Zoe was halfway to the lifetime limit her insurer placed on her care. She faced a grim future; not only using up her lifetime limit by pre-school, but carrying a pre-existing condition that will require attention and care for the rest of her life. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Zoe is protected. But TrumpCare puts her future in danger--higher costs, less care. I began with Dr. Martin Luther King, and I will end with Pope Francis, who spoke of Dr. King in his speech to Congress. As Pope Francis said: ``Health is not a consumer good but a universal right, so access to health services cannot be a privilege.'' Our responsibility to the sick and the hurt is biblical. It is fundamental to who we are. Today, let us declare once again that affordable health care must be the right of every American--not the privilege of the few. For the sake of our values, to honor our responsibilities, to protect the health of the American people, I urged my colleagues to vote no on this moral monstrosity--the TrumpCare bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Congressman Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa's longest serving Delegate to the House of Representatives. Congressman Eni F. H. Faleomavaega was a patriot and a leader who personified the highest ideals of our nation. Eni dedicated his entire life to service. He was a proud Army veteran, and long before he held elected office, he worked as a staffer, including a time in the office of San Francisco Congressman Phil Burton. For 26 years, Congressman Faleomavaega brought outspoken and effective leadership for American Samoa to the House of Representatives. Eni was a relentless champion for the rights and advancement of his constituents. His life and leadership powerfully spotlighted the immense contributions of Americans from U.S. territories. May it comfort his family and friends that so many join in their sorrow at the passing of this extraordinary man.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her hard work on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, every American should be able to trust in the promise that, after a life of hard work, a secure and dignified retirement will be there for them. But today, that promise is at risk. Half of all private sector employees in America, almost 60 million people, do not have access to any type of employer-sponsored retirement plan. It is a problem that Republicans should remember when they plan to raise costs on seniors, when they work to slash Medicaid and they destroy the sacred guarantee of Medicare. Yet, once again, Republicans have come to this floor not with the retirement security of hardworking families in mind, but with a greedy Wall Street first agenda. Under the Obama administration, the Department of Labor empowered the States to create innovative solutions to the retirement savings crisis. The gentleman is talking about--some of these savings didn't even exist when we had the majority. In States across the Nation, the great laboratories of our democracy went to work just as they should. My State of California decided to create something called Secure Choice, a State-run retirement plan that allows employees to be auto-enrolled into an IRA if they work for a business with five or more employees. In doing so, California will give almost 7 million workers access to retirement savings--no substitute for a pension or a 401(k), but a vital step toward a greater retirement security. Other States have stepped forward with their own plan, the gentlewoman's State of Oregon being one of them: Oregon, California, Illinois, Washington State, Connecticut. The Republican measure targets workers' savings accounts in those States and chills efforts to foster retirement savings accounts in some 20 other States. In some cities, including the city of our chair, Mr. Crowley, New York City is attempting to move in that direction. So today, instead of supporting States' innovation--this is a states' rights bill to the party of states' rights--Republicans have decided Wall Street's profits are more important than workers' retirement savings. This Republican resolution is opposed by the AARP, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the AFL-CIO. In fact, the AARP letter to Congress states, starts, as a matter of fact: On behalf of hardworking Americans who struggle to save for retirement, AARP urges you to vote against a Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn the Department of Labor's final rule on ``Savings Arrangements Established by States for Non-Governmental Employees.'' And while Republicans race to do the bidding of their Wall Street friends, they still have not lifted a finger to create more good-paying jobs for hardworking Americans. Let's just make a comparison. On Friday, it will be 4 weeks since President Trump took office. Let's go back 8 years to when President Obama took office. On January 20, 2009, President Obama stood on the steps of the Capitol and asked for swift, bold action now to create good-paying jobs, to establish education for the 21st century, and the list goes on for swift, bold action now. One week and one day later, the House passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. One week after that, the Senate passed the bill. And on February 17, which would be Friday of this week, 4 weeks since the inauguration of President Obama, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which created or saved around 4 million jobs of the American people, stopping the loss of jobs that existed in the Bush administration. That is something that is so remarkable. So where is the jobs bill from the Republicans? Wasn't this election about jobs? Where is their jobs bill? Where is the infrastructure bill? By the way, President Obama also passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act even before the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He also signed the SCHIP program, which had bipartisan support in the Congress and much more. This do-nothing Congress, except do stuff for your friends who will exploit the environment, clean air, clean water--you name it-- retirement savings, has done nothing. As I said, within 4 weeks of the Obama administration, all those bills had passed. Today is February 15, and I ask my Republican colleagues: Where is your jobs bill? Why do you have time for Wall Street's agenda, but no plans to create jobs for hardworking Americans? This is the people's House. We must do the people's business. You must do a better job by the people we serve. When you are ready to do that, we look forward to working with you in that regard. I join the AARP in urging a ``no'' vote on this ill-advised CRA.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up Congresswoman Lofgren's H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on individuals, like the 30-year-old Iranian citizen who entered the U.S. to visit his family in San Francisco, then was detained and transferred to county jail.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am so proud of him and his leadership as the ranking member on the Budget Committee. I am so sorry that the Speaker left the floor because I have some very good news for him. Clearly, he does not understand what the Affordable Care Act has brought to our country in terms of expanding benefits, lowering costs, and expanding the access of many more people to the promise of our founders, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, a healthier life, and the freedom to pursue their happiness. I understand why the Speaker may want to concentrate on some mythology that he presented about the Affordable Care Act, because he is not going to focus on what this bill on the floor does today, and the Republican budget. It does not create more good-paying jobs, or raise wages. It does not invest in infrastructure to rebuild our Nation. The Republican plan does not invest in the education of our children or the lifetime learning of working people. It does not help Americans find balance between work and family. It does not reduce the deficit. In fact, it increases the deficit. And it does not seek to drain the swamp of secret money from our elections. Instead, the Republicans are feeding their ideological obsession with repealing the ACA and dismantling the health and economic security of hardworking families. We all know that a budget should be a statement of our values. What is important to us as a nation should be reflected in our budget proposals. I always say: Show me your values, show me your budget. Well, you heard me say some of what this budget does not do. As we get further into the next stage of the budget, we will see that what their budget does is just broaden, widen the disparity in income in our country, give tax breaks to the high end. And part of their tax breaks for the high end is to repeal the Affordable Care Act so they can eliminate the tax on those who are helping to fund the Affordable Care Act. So let me just talk about the Affordable Care Act for a while, because one of the things that the public should know is that the ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid, are now wed. If you mess with the ACA, it directly impacts these other important initiatives, Medicare and Medicaid. The Republicans have never supported Medicare. They opposed it at its origin and, over time, continued to oppose it. In the nineties, their Speaker, Newt Gingrich, said Medicare should wither on the vine. Their Speaker, Paul Ryan, has in his budget removing the guarantee of Medicare for our seniors. Remove the guarantee. That means you get a voucher and you go shop for Medicare in this nonexistent health plan that they put forth. Republicans talk about how they are going to repeal and replace. It is interesting illustratively, but not realistic in terms of the fact that, for 6 years, they have had a chance to propose an alternative. We have seen nothing. What we have seen is cut and run. They want to cut benefits and run. They want to cut savings and run. They want to cut access and run. They want to cut Medicare and run. They want to cut Medicaid and run. The list goes on and on. They want to cut jobs. We will lose 3 million jobs if they have their way with their nonexistent cut-and-run plan on the Affordable Care Act. Let's talk about the relationship between ACA and Medicare and Medicaid. Hospitals will be devastated under the ACA repeal because they will be left with uncompensated care. One of the challenges to hospitals was that they must care for people who come in and don't have the ability to pay. With the Affordable Care Act, we now take care of that. That alleviates the cost to corporate America or those who are providing health benefits to their workers, adding between $1,000 and $3,000 a year per policy because they are carrying the uncompensated care cost. The Affordable Care Act alleviates that. The reality is, as Mr. Neal, our new ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee, has said, Medicaid is now a health program that crosses the economic spectrum. It is not just for the poor. People think of Medicaid as a poor people initiative--no. It enables mothers to work their way out of poverty by providing affordable coverage for their children--yes. It enables people with disabilities to get the care needed to live and work in the community, and it provides critical nursing home care for middle class elderly who have spent down their savings and have no other alternatives. As Mr. Neal says, Grandma is going to be living in the guest room or in the attic or in the basement if you cannot have nursing home care. This is very important to families because we want a budget that enables people to have good-paying jobs, increase their paycheck so that they can afford their home, address the aspirations of their children, and have a dignified retirement. If they have to care for their aging parents, they do less for their children. This assault on Medicaid is an assault on the financial stability of families across the board, whatever their age. Furthermore, Medicaid is one of best tools to fight addiction. We made a big deal about our opioid legislation. Americans who previously did not have access to health care and, therefore, self-medicated with opioids and other painkillers are able to access diagnosis, treatment, and pain management. Medicaid provides real care for the addiction and underlying condition to turn for the better for individuals and their families and the community. The list goes on and on. The jobs issue. In most of your communities, healthcare providers, hospitals, et cetera, are the biggest employers. They won't be anymore. Millions of jobs will be lost. Mr. Pallone, our ranking member on Energy and Commerce, another committee of jurisdiction, keeps making that point. Why are you being, he says, ideological about this when the practical effect is about the economic security of our families? I thank Mr. Pallone for that. Mr. Bobby Scott, the ranking member on the Education and the Workforce Committee shows what happens to States if you overturn the Affordable Care Act. In his own State of Virginia, he can give testimony to the increased cost to the State or lack of meeting the healthcare needs of constituents. The ACA guards and strengthens the health care and economic security of every American, no matter where he or she gets health insurance. It delivers transformational progress in terms of coverage, quality, and cost. Much has been said about the fact that more than 20 million people now have access to affordable health care. This is a wonderful and remarkable thing, but that is only part of the story. Every American who has access to health care benefits from this. Most Americans receive their health benefits in the workplace. If you do, you now cannot be discriminated against because of a preexisting medical condition. You cannot be discriminated against if you are a woman. No longer is being a woman a preexisting medical condition, which means you paid more if you are a woman. No longer can the insurance companies levy lifetime limits for a preexisting condition that you may have or even for the care that you are getting on a new basis. The list goes on and on. Do you know how many people have a preexisting medical condition? There are 100 million families affected by preexisting conditions, such as if your child is born prematurely. I, myself, have five children. Long ago, insurance companies said to me: You are a poor risk because you have had five children. I said: I thought that was a sign of my strength. I didn't know that you were measuring it as a weakness. Any excuse would have done, but not with the Affordable Care Act. It stands there as a pillar of economic and health security. It stands there as a pillar of economic security like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which, again, the Republicans and Newt Gingrich opposed in the 1990s and said would wither on the vine. In his budget, Paul Ryan takes away the guarantee. But it is a pillar of economic and health security. So the proposal today increases the deficit, does not create jobs, undermines the health security of the American people, and does not do much in any regard to address the challenges I posed in the beginning. It is no wonder they want to talk about the Affordable Care Act. They have nothing to recommend in their budget resolution. The GOP's repeal plan will raise premiums. Mr. Chairman, the rate of growth of healthcare costs in our country has been greatly diminished by the Affordable Care Act. In the more than 50 years that they have been measuring the rate of growth, it has never been slower than now. Repeal will create chaos that will echo in the health coverage and costs of every American. Chaos is the order of the day for them. The American people will not be dragged back to the days when an illness or injury meant financial ruin, that you might not get a job because someone in your family was ill and was going to raise the cost of health care in a company that might hire you, that you could lose your home. Most bankruptcies spring because of not being able to pay medical bills. In short, we will not allow the Republicans to make America sick again. I urge a ``no'' vote on this unfortunate resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Whip Hoyer for yielding and for calling attention to the serious loss the House will suffer with Mary Frances leaving. The first thing that I am inclined to say is: Mary Frances, say it isn't so. We so depend on your wisdom, your knowledge, your judgment, your advice, and guidance on all of the issues that the distinguished whip has mentioned. The appreciation for Mary Frances goes well beyond the whip's office, throughout the leadership, and our caucus and, I think, across the aisle, certainly across the Capitol. I was hoping in the last couple of days that the decision might be reversed, but Mary Frances, we wish her well. We are not sending her, Mr. Hoyer, to the Senate. She is going to the Senate. But it is wonderful to know that the Senate will be blessed with her great leadership, knowledge, wisdom, judgment, and beautiful temperament. Mary Frances, thank you. Don't be a stranger to us. We look forward to continuing our work together to preserve our planet, to create jobs in our country, to do so many things that are a part of your values and our values.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. ``Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States: if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her superior service on the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, across America today, hardworking people and seniors find that their retirement security is under threat and in doubt. Congress has a responsibility to strengthen Americans' retirement security, and we dishonor that responsibility with the half measure for coal miners in the CR today--less than a half measure. I commend Congressman Cartwright of Pennsylvania. He knows full well the contribution that the coal miners have made to our economy. He knows the stress that they are under from what is happening now and how this is exacerbated by the continuing resolution. Mr. Speaker, 22,500 coal miners in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and across coal country are facing a complete loss of their health and pension benefits in 2017. However, the continuing resolution offers these men and women only a short term. Senator Manchin has been making the pitch, and many of us have joined him, that these health and pension benefits should be in our legislation at least for 5 years, preferably in perpetuity. What the CR says is: not in perpetuity, not in 5 years--for 4 months; for 4 months and only health benefits, completely ignoring the pension part of it. Coal miners are on the Hill today to make their case, to tell their personal stories about how this has affected them. After a lifetime of service and in a culture built around that industry, they trusted that their pension and their health benefits would be there. But their companies went bankrupt. Think of this, my colleagues. If you, anyone in your family, or any of your constituents were working a lifetime in a company, in an industry, and that company went bankrupt, and the answer to you is: Tough luck. We went bankrupt. Your pension went down the drain. It is absolutely criminal. It is absolutely criminal. The CR offers a short-term, 4-month patch for health care and leaves the miners worse off in April than they are now. I thank Senator Manchin for taking the lead in such a forceful way, and I thank Matt Cartwright for leading us here. In hope that we could defeat this rule, I urge my Republican colleagues who are from coal country in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia--and coal country goes beyond. Virginia is one of the biggest coal-producing States, though you might not realize it. The CR does nothing, does nothing to solve the critical pension problem that threatens the future of these miners and their families. With our previous question, Democrats, led by Congressman Cartwright, are calling on Republicans to do better. We should be voting on commonsense, bipartisan legislation that would give miners in coal country the peace of mind of knowing that their retirements that they worked for all their lives are secure. Mr. McKinley of West Virginia, a Republican, has led the way with the Miners Protection Act. It is a bipartisan bill. It has 87 cosponsors, and we would like to defeat this rule so that we can bring up Mr. McKinley's Miners Protection Act. The bipartisan bill would transfer funds in excess of the amounts needed to meet existing legislation under the Abandoned Mine Land fund to the United Mine Workers 1974 pension plan to prevent its insolvency. The funds are there. They just need to be transferred. Mr. McKinley's bill does that. Make certain retirees who lose healthcare benefits following the bankruptcy or insolvency of his or her employer eligible for benefits. As these families head toward the holiday season, we must ensure they can celebrate knowing that the health and pension benefits they earned--they have earned--will always be there for them. I was disappointed that, in the CR, we did not have an extender for some renewable initiatives, renewable alternatives. But we were told by the Speaker's Office that our guys are fossil fuel guys. They are not interested in the renewables. Okay. I respect that. If you are fossil fuel guys, why aren't you looking out for the fossil fuel people who have worked under dangerous circumstances for their lives, going into unsafe situations, breathing air that has created problems for their health, and now the companies have declared bankruptcy or insolvency. Tough luck for the workers. Mr. McKinley knows that is not right. That is why he introduced the bill. Mr. Cartwright knows that is not right. That is why he is supporting the bill. And that is why Democrats come to the floor today to urge Republicans to express their concern for their constituents in the fossil fuel industry to do justice to them for the service they have provided for the benefits, pension, and health care they are entitled to. So we will see what the commitment is of the Republicans in Congress to the fossil fuel guys and gals. We will see on their vote here today. Vote ``no'' on the bill so we can vote ``yes'' on the McKinley Miners Protection Act.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I commend her for her excellent leadership as the ranking Democratic member on the Appropriations Committee. As an appropriator myself, I understand the culture. I understand the camaraderie between parties. For that reason, I want to commend our distinguished chairman, Mr. Rogers, for his wonderful service as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I served with him for many years on the committee. I know firsthand his concern for the American people, and I thank him for his service. I know he will continue as an appropriator, but I thank him for his leadership as chairman. I join in commending one of our Members who is leaving, Sam Farr, for his always looking out for America's children, whether it was their health or education, especially in terms of their access to food security. I thank Mr. Farr for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I come to the floor to express my personal disappointment with this legislation, and I will be voting ``no.'' My colleagues have asked me what I think about it. I am not urging them to do anything, but I am telling you why I think this is a missed opportunity. While we all recognize that it was a moral challenge for us to do something for the children of Flint, the manner in which it was done, in a bifurcated way, was used to get votes for another bill, which I think was wrong. But not to dwell on process--not to dwell on process-- let's just look at the facts. The facts are these: This will probably be billed at over $1.5 trillion, over $1.5 trillion. There could have been $170 million appropriated for the children of Flint in this bill. Some would say that is not authorized. Probably $250 billion to $300 billion in this bill is not authorized, so why should the children of Flint have to step over a higher barrier? And that is just exemplary of the partisan nature of the bill. We have always worked in a bipartisan way, House and Senate appropriations, and then especially as we come to the end of the year. But this year it was Republican-Republican, House and Senate. Again, forget process. But what does that mean in terms of priorities? It means that Families First, an initiative to help foster kids in our country, something that had bipartisan support in the House and Senate, was rejected from consideration. It means, again, that the miners and the families of coal miners who needed--suppose that business that you work for, Mr. Speaker, went bankrupt or declared themselves insolvent and, therefore, your pension and your health care benefits disappeared. How would you feel? Well, that is just what happened to the miners, and what was needed was long-term security for them that Mr. McKinley, a Republican, put forth in his legislation that we hoped could be taken up and be part of this. But it was rejected by our Republican colleagues. It is interesting, because one of the other things that is not in this bill that we hoped would be is a correction to last year's bill for extenders for renewable energy. I was told by Republicans that we don't want to do that for renewable energy because we are fossil fuel guys. Well, if you are fossil fuel guys, take care of the miners and their families. The anticipation would be that there could be a 5-year proposal for pension and healthcare benefits. Right now, there is a 4-month provision for health care--4 months, not 5 years--not pensions and benefits, just health care. Why? Why is that so unimportant when we are talking about people who are part of a culture of coal mining in our country, which is fading, and they need help, and we should be here to help them? So, as we reject any proposals for renewables that might provide many, many jobs for these same people, we are also rejecting their right to their health benefits and their pensions. The list goes on, but it is really so sad that the Flint issue should have been all in one bill. It was bifurcated for reasons I can't explain, and that is why, if I can't explain it, I am not voting for it. That is why I call upon my colleagues. Recognizing the many good things in the bill but not meeting the needs of the American people, foster kids had bipartisan support in the House and Senate, but it was rejected--rejected. Now, there is funding for the opioids in this legislation, and I am pleased about that. I have been told that I should be happy about that because that was one of our requests. I think it was a bipartisan request of everyone, House and Senate, to have funding for opioids. That is what I thought. That is what I thought, and I am glad it is in the bill. So, in any event, for the opportunity lost, for the ignoring of some very legitimate proposals to help the American people, for the rejection of Republican suggestions in terms of the miners, for these and other reasons, I will be voting against this, regretfully. We have tried to work in a bipartisan way in the past, but this year, instead of four-poster, it is two; and that has had an impact on the content of what this is, and that content has an impact on the lives of the American people. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will just say that that is why I am not voting for the bill. Members will have to make their own decisions. But we cannot go down the path of missed opportunities and just roll over and not speak out and say this isn't the best that we can do for the American people. We owe them much better than this bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution on the table.

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

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee for yielding. And I thank her for her great work being involved in the appropriations process, which I shared with her for many years, but a place where so many of our values are reflected by how we allocate our resources. I particularly want to thank Congresswoman Nita Lowey, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for their relentless, persistent, constant advocacy for this Flint money. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it was February when President Obama sent over a request for $1.9 billion to address the Zika crisis. This was an amount of money based on expert advice and was related to scientific evidence. It related to how we would do research for a vaccine, how we would do vector control, how we would do prevention, and, as our colleagues have mentioned, how we address the issue that this is a very unusual situation because it is sexually transmitted, and we had the obstacle of saying no contraception, which held us up for awhile. So today, finally, we come to the floor, and I think it is very important that we take the action that we do. But I do want to remind you that $1.1 billion is still $800 million short of the $1.9 billion the President requested. Some of that other money was taken from the Ebola resources, which were sorely needed, and continue to be needed there. So while this is an important, giant step, it is not complete in terms of what we need to do. The continuing resolution before us must recognize that more than 23,000 Americans, including almost 2,100 pregnant women, have been infected with Zika. The bill falls short, as I said, of the $1.9 billion that top public health officials said is the full amount required to protect American communities. But I would say this. I think there are some good intentions in a bipartisan way of the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and others, working with Congresswoman Lowey, Congresswoman DeLauro, and Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, to think in terms of anticipation rather than reaction that perhaps we could have a FEMA- like fund for disasters of this kind that affect the public health. The public health system is a strength of our country, and when it is threatened, we must have the resources to protect it. So perhaps out of this long delay, one of the things that could come together is a conversation that says, let's have FEMA-like biomedical research, whatever it happens to be, reaction to a public health emergency that enables us to do the research necessary to protect the public health of the American people. Earlier tonight, the House took an important, long overdue step toward addressing a man-made disaster in Flint, Michigan. The success of the Flint amendment is a tribute to the leadership of Congressman Dan Kildee, who has been an absolute lion--a lion--for the children and families of Flint throughout this crisis. Thanks to Congressman Kildee, we have sent a message of hope to the people of Flint. It is my hope that in the House-Senate WRDA conference, we can move forward the Flint assistance that overwhelmingly passed the Senate by 95-3 earlier this month. With strong bipartisan support, the amendment passed earlier this month. While we would have preferred to deliver those funds to the children of Flint in this bill, we are at least on a path to meaningful action, and that is important to mention. In this bill--and our distinguished chairman made this reference, and certainly our distinguished ranking member on the committee, Mr. Bishop, made the point about what the bill contains to increase the funding for the military and veteran caregivers. So much is in this bill about veterans. And as they say in the military, on the battlefield, we leave no soldier behind; and when they come home, we leave no veteran behind. So many in this room on both sides of the aisle have been champions in that, and certainly our ranking member, Mr. Bishop. I particularly want to highlight that in this bill, we have increased funding for our military and veteran caregivers, strengthening the support for America's hidden heroes. The hidden heroes were named such by Senator, Secretary--she carries many titles--Elizabeth Dole. Yesterday, in the United States Capitol Visitor Center theater, hundreds of caregivers of our military and veteran families came together to talk about the shared challenges that they have to be engaged in a Hidden Heroes launch, the launching of cities in conjunction with the actions of the Hidden Heroes initiative. I am proud to be a cochair with the Hidden Heroes Congressional Caucus with Senator McCain and Senator Reed on the Senate side and our chairman, Congressman Jeff Miller, on the House side. In this bill, there is $10 million to boost the VA caregivers initiatives that will help address the increasing demand on VA services as servicemembers continue to come home to their families. Hidden heroes, do you know how many there are? 5.5 million military and veteran caregivers in our country. How these families raise their children, care for their loved ones, siblings, spouses, children is remarkable, and this legislation recognizes that need to assist with training and all. We must ensure that the VA can meet the demand of a growing population of caregivers, hiring more staff and coordinators to make sure veterans and their families, friends, and loved ones get the services they earned and deserve. With this CR, we will keep the government open and prevent any self- inflicted wounds to our economy that had been inflicted before. I want to especially thank our ranking member, Nita Lowey, for her leadership in helping to craft this bipartisan path forward. I thank our distinguished chairman for his leadership. I extend my gratitude to the Speaker for us coming together to address the issue of Flint, which has enabled us to come forward in this legislation. For that reason, I will be supporting this legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. What a beautiful picture of Mark. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Gabbard for bringing us together in this Special Order to salute a very special person, our colleague, Mark Takai. It is a solemn privilege for all of us today to give voice to the sorrow of the U.S. Congress at the passing of our colleague and dear friend. We have lost someone truly special, a person who held the respect and friendship of colleagues on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the Capitol, up and down Pennsylvania Avenue. In fact, the President himself paid tribute to Mark when he died. He said: ``Michelle and I were saddened to learn of the passing of Representative Mark Takai. ``Mark was always a fighter,'' the President said. ``It's the spirit he brought to more than two decades of public service on behalf of the people of Hawaii. ``He stood up for America's most vulnerable. He championed our troops and veterans, and proudly wore our Nation's uniform. And his relentless push for cancer research inspired countless Americans fighting the same battle as him. ``Simply put, our country is better off,'' the President said, ``our country is better off because of Mark's contributions. He leaves a legacy of courage, of service, and of hope.'' Michelle and he said: ``Our thoughts and prayers are with Mark's wife, Sami, their two children, and many friends and family.'' Many of the friends and family are here today: Sami, of course; Matthew and Kaila; his parents, Mark's parents, Erik and Naomi; his sister, Nadine; her husband, Ronnie, and daughter Nelani; his sister, Nikki; his brother, Ross; his father-in-law, Gary Kai; and all of the people of Hawaii who may be watching this, certainly all of our colleagues. He was effective from the start, I think, because he was such an experienced legislator, 20 years in the Hawaii Legislature, and that made him, with his energy and as our colleague, Mr. Aguilar said, his competitiveness. Who but a competitive soul, and an imaginative one, would be bringing leis--I guess it is lei, singular is plural--to Selma to match what happened in the sixties, when Martin Luther King and our colleague John Lewis wore leis in the march. And who but he would, only a few weeks in Congress, decide that all these hundreds of lei would be sent from Hawaii for people to wear on the 50th anniversary of Selma. As I said yesterday in Statuary Hall, many of the Members were thinking, ``Why didn't I think of that?'' but that is how Mark was. I don't want to say competitive, but nonetheless. As far as his seating here, Mr. Aguilar, I was privileged to appoint him as a part of the escort committee. Because of the President's origins in Hawaii, I wanted Hawaii to be represented on the escort committee; but as you said, he exploited the opportunity, and we were glad that he did. I really wish that he were here, but I wish that everyone could have seen him on our codel to Asia. Congresswoman Matsui did, and others. We were in Burma, Cambodia, Korea, Japan, Vietnam. We began in California, came to Hawaii to be briefed at the Pacific Command, to go on to Asia and then come back through Alaska. Now, here he was, a relatively new Member of Congress. This was like April of last year. He was in Congress maybe 3, 4 months, but he was on the Armed Services Committee, so he spoke with great authority because this was a security trip as well as a values, human rights trip and our economic interests trip. So I said to him--getting back to Mr. Aguilar--I said to him: We are going to begin in California with some briefings, and then we will go to Hawaii, and then you will preside as we meet with the Pacific Command. So would you like to join us in California? He said: Would I like to join you in California? I could be home with Sami. I could have a night with Sami or I could be with all of you in California. I will meet you in Hawaii. It was very clear that any chance he got he wanted to be with his family. Certainly he, again, was part of the delegation. Only a few months in Congress, with such dignity, we forgot that he was a new Member of Congress. With great knowledge of our national security, with great diplomacy in how he conveyed his thoughts, and every place he went, he was beautifully received. I wish all of you could have seen how, especially in Japan, where they took special interest to embrace him as a Japanese American Member of Congress. Everything he did, he did with excellence. He died as he had lived: loved and surrounded by family and friends, with great dignity and great courage. He used his time well--used his time well--and, again, understood what the opportunity of serving in Congress was, and he made an honorable contribution. His service here brought luster to the Congress. It is a privilege to call him colleague for all of us, and an even bigger privilege to call him friend. In the Hawaiian way of family, he has bound us together. We are all family. I hope that the Takai family knows that they have family always in the Congress of the United States.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, there is a public health emergency in our country. Are you thinking of Zika? Are you thinking of opioids? Yes, they are public health emergencies, but there is another ongoing, long- term public health emergency, and that is gun violence. I thank the chair of our task force, Mr. Thompson; Mr. Larson for organizing it; the great icon, John Lewis, for galvanizing all of the concern in the Congress around this issue; David Cicilline and, of course, our distinguished Member we just heard from, Congresswoman Clark from Massachusetts, for their leadership. Robin Kelly of Illinois has been a champion, and so has Judy Chu. So many Members have taken the lead on this issue, as Elizabeth Esty did before she was even sworn in in Congress, addressing the concerns at Newtown. Ninety-one people lose their life to gun violence every day. That is not a statistic, that is an outrage. It is a challenge to the conscience of our Nation to end Congress' appalling inaction on gun violence prevention. Across America, communities are standing up, speaking out, and lighting the way. A preventable public health crisis is taking the lives of our children, our neighbors, and our friends. You would think that when the lives of little children in school were taken that that would be the end of it, that would end the discussion, and that any common ground that we could find to expand the background checks, which is not a big thing really, in terms of just including Internet sales and gun shows--just expanding what we have, not a big legislative move but would make a tremendous difference in saving lives in our country. This Congress must hear the voices of those calling for action to keep guns out of the wrong hands. And I want to just talk about some of the voices that I recently heard when I was in Florida a couple of weeks ago. I went to Orlando and visited Pulse, the nightclub where the gun violence there took place. It was gun violence, and it was a hate crime, which is a deadly combination. When I met with the families and some of the survivors there to hear their concerns about hate crimes and gun violence, they said to me, really to a person, please do something to stop gun violence. As consumed as they were with the fact that this was a hate crime, the gun violence issue was what each one of them spoke about, that they had lost their loved ones. These are young people out on a Saturday night. One mom who went there to take her son to see his friends and the rest and make sure he was safe, the mom died, and the son survived. Any mom would prefer that outcome, but why does that have to be the choice? So here they are: if you are in kindergarten, if you are in the movie theater, or if you are in church praying, as was referenced by our colleagues about South Carolina--that was a hate crime, too. The awful statements made by the perpetrator of that crime where he exploited the hospitality that was extended to him to pray together, and then for him to make his hateful remarks, racist remarks, and then do violence on the people who had welcomed him to pray with them. So where is it that people are safe? What can we do to make a difference? Well, for one thing, if you are too dangerous to fly, you should be too dangerous to buy a gun. Eighty to 90 percent of the American people subscribe to that. That shouldn't be controversial in the Congress. We are supposed to be Representatives representing the will of the people. And where there is consensus--we have enough disagreement, but where there is consensus, a public health emergency, and loss of life, even to little children, people in church, young people out on the town, people going to the movies, what is it that our colleagues don't understand? What is it that our colleagues don't understand? In addition to keeping guns out of the hands of those who are too dangerous to fly, our Nation depends on keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, again, just simply expanding to gun shows and Internet sales. Yet House Republicans won't even give the American people a vote. Give us a vote and see how it goes. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid? Are you afraid that the American people will be done and that we will have a successful vote on no fly, no buy, strengthening our background check system? So we are going to be leaving soon. Before we left for the summer, under the leadership of our distinguished leader, whom we all consider a privilege to call colleague, John Lewis, there was a sit-in on the floor of this House that reverberated across the country. Then we left. Congress shut down and we left. We are about to do so again, but we have a little time. We have a little time to save lives. What more important thing does any of us have to do than to stay here and pass a law to save lives? If somebody said to you: You could save 90 lives by passing a bill today, wouldn't you do that? Or, why wouldn't you do that? Why wouldn't you do that? It is really quite a sad thing when people go to the movies--as my colleague, Mr. Israel, keeps pointing out. When they go to the movies, usually they are concerned about are they going to be able to get their popcorn and their whatever in time to get a seat in the theater. Now they want to know where the nearest exit is when they go to the theater. What is that about? Some people say it is about politics and it is just too politically dangerous for some of our colleagues to vote for the simple expansion of the background check legislation and passing no fly, no buy. It is politically dangerous to them. Whose political survival is more important than the lives of these children, of those people in church, and of those young people out on a Saturday night, people going to the movies? Whose political survival is more important than protecting the American people? That is the oath we take, to protect and defend, whether it is the Constitution, whether it is protecting our country's national security, our neighborhood security, or our personal security. So let's honor our oath of office. Let us honor our sense of responsibility. Let us respond to those moms and family members and survivors from polls that said: Why? Why are you not passing legislation in the House of Representatives to prevent gun violence, to save lives--to save lives? So, in any case, I think it is really important. I thank Mr. Larson for, again, bringing us together. We are not going away. This will go on and go on and go on until we disarm hate. We are here to save lives here and across the country. We are not going to stop until we enact gun violence prevention laws. We are not going to stop until we get the job done. Again, I thank our leaders on this important issue. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for his leadership for years now on this subject. Again, hopefully, it won't be too long before our colleagues see the light and decide that their political survival is not more important than the survival of little children in first grade. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in the course of these 1-minutes, of which there have been over 50, thank you, Mr. Cicilline, for bringing us together once again on the steps of the Capitol a couple of nights ago and now here in the Chamber. When we are in school and they ask us to write about something, they say: Answer these questions: Who? What? When? Where? Why? Who? Little children in Newtown, young people in Orlando, churchgoers in South Carolina, moviegoers in Colorado, again and again. The list goes on and on as to the vulnerability. What? What? What? Slaughter of people. Mr. Thompson has repeated the numbers over and over again. But 91 people killed every night on the streets of our country, and we had 91 people in orange shirts on the steps of the Capitol last week to mention that. Over 1,000 mass murders since Newtown, mass murders being described as over four people being killed in any one instance. What? What? What? Violence on the streets of our city, and even in our churches and other. Who? What? When? Every day. Every single day with greater frequency and intensity. Most recently, in Dallas. So sad. An assassination of five police officers. Many of us spoke to that in the course of the last few days. Where? All over the country. I just mentioned Dallas, and I mentioned some other venues earlier. All over the country, every single day. But the main question is, Why? Why is this happening? Mayor Rawlings of Dallas was very eloquent in his comments when he said: We must address the root causes of this. Yes. But why are these guns so readily available? Because Congress will not act--refuses to act--on passing commonsense gun violence prevention legislation. No fly, no buy. Almost everyone in our country supports that--Republicans, Democrats, Independents, gun owners, NRA members. Not the NRA. The NRA stands between any commonsense solutions and this Congress, which I think they own. Why? Because some people think their political survival is more important than survival of little kids in kindergarten in Newtown. Why is it happening in kindergarten classes? in churches? in places of recreation for young people? in theaters? in bowling alleys? You name it, it has happened there. Why? Because we have not fully impressed upon the American people their role in lobbying Congress to make a difference. We are limited in what we can ask people to do vis-a-vis Congress, but they are unlimited in their advocacy and in their capacity. Nothing is more eloquent to a Member of Congress than the voice of his or her own constituents. As John Lewis, our beautiful icon who has led us in all of this, has said: What we have to do is convince the average Joe--that would be J-O or J-O-E--of their power to make the difference in our country by making their voices heard to Members of Congress who have the power to vote for legislation. We ask over and over again for the Speaker to give us a vote because we believe and have confidence in the American people that their voices will be heard and not ignored again and again and again and again by the Republicans in Congress, but will give us a vote that will make America safer and help us to honor--to honor--our oath of office to protect and defend the American people. This has gone into the realm of hate crimes. The same thing in South Carolina. The same thing in Orlando. It must end. But our message is clear: we will not end until this is over, until we get commonsense gun violence prevention legislation passed by the Congress of the United States. I thank all of my colleagues for what they are doing. Our whip, Mr. Hoyer, is leader on the floor for us. Thank you for orchestrating this with Mr. Cicilline and so many others. I thank my colleagues for making the voices of their constituents heard here.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Cicilline) has been such a leader on this issue. He was a leader in the sit-in that happened a few weeks ago on the floor of the House, I can attest personally. I bore witness to his staying here all night, for 25 hours straight. He organized us on the steps of the Capitol on Tuesday evening, the 1-month anniversary--bad, sad observance of the 1 month since Orlando, where a hate crime was committed against young people gathered for a night of enjoyment, instead to have the end of their life occur. And why? Because of a hate crime. And why? Because we don't have commonsense gun laws in our country. He also organized us all day in scores of 1-minutes on behalf of House Democrats. But I want to also thank him for putting this Special Order together in preparation for the event that we will have on the steps of the Capitol later this evening. I associate myself with the remarks of our distinguished whip, Mr. Hoyer, when we say to the Republicans, why have you left here? Congresswoman Beatty has the same message. What more important thing do our Republican colleagues have to do than to be in session, to do their job, for us all to do our job for the American people? We should be here to do our job on Zika, which the President over 4 months ago requested funding to fight Zika, and now it is spreading in our country. We should be here for funding for opioids. We passed a wonderful bill--good policy, but no funding; therefore, not effective. We should be here to pass the funding for opioids and Flint, Michigan. What more important thing do you have to do, my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, than to meet the needs of the children of Flint, Michigan? Here we are, continuing to have our conversation about commonsense gun violence protection. I want to quote from President Lyndon Johnson. In the aftermath of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, just weeks after the fatal shooting of Martin Luther King, Jr., and only a few years after President John F. Kennedy was shot, President Johnson pressed Congress to enact gun control legislation that he sent to Capitol Hill years earlier. He had sent it after the Kennedy assassination. LBJ ordered all of his staff and urged allies in Congress to act swiftly. Here is what he said that was as relevant now as it was then. President Lyndon Johnson, following the deaths of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, said: ``We only have 2 weeks, maybe only 10 days, before the gun lobby gets organized. We've got to beat the NRA into the offices of Members of Congress.'' Decades. This has been going on for decades. When a President of the United States, after the assassination of a President; an icon, Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.; Senator Robert Kennedy--well, actually he was a candidate for President at the time, Senator Kennedy was. ``We've got to beat the NRA into the offices of Members of Congress.'' Well, obviously, we haven't, because they sort of live there. They sort of live there. And when he signed the watered-down version of the bill he proposed, he said, ``The voices that blocked these safeguards were not the voices of an aroused nation. They were the voices of a powerful gun lobby, a gun lobby that has prevailed for the moment in an election year.'' Sound familiar? LBJ went on to say, ``We have been through a great deal of anguish these last few months and these last few years--too much anguish to forget so quickly. So now we must complete the task which this long- needed legislation begins.'' Here we are decades later, still recognizing the fact that the National Rifle Association, the gun lobby, has so much power over Members of Congress. It has so much power over their political survival, some of our colleagues think. I ask you, Mr. Speaker: What is more important, the political survival of Members of Congress beholden to the gun lobby or the survival of little kindergarten students in Newtown, Connecticut? What is more important, the political survival of Members of Congress or the personal survival of members gathered in church in South Carolina, or young people gathered for an evening of fun in Orlando--the list goes on and on--or our dear police officers killed in Dallas. What is it? How do you explain it to people, except to say there is a large element of cowardice. There is a large element of putting people's own political survival over the oath of office that we take to protect the American people. Excuse me. This is so emotional. I salute my colleague Congresswoman Beatty for her very passionate and intellectual statement that she made in recognizing the role of athletes. I am very proud of the Golden State Warriors. They have long been involved in this, as has the NBA and the players that she mentioned. This was another venue for them to speak out. They have been eloquent on the subject for a while. I salute my colleague Mr. Cicilline, not only for his work on gun issues, but on hate crimes as well, because that was a hate crime in Orlando. Mr. Clyburn is going to be outside on the steps of the Capitol with a large crowd of people so we can listen to the stories of those affected. If only our colleagues would open their hearts and their minds and not have a tin ear to the voices of the families, listen to the families. One of our own colleagues, Congressman Bobby Rush of Illinois, he and his family are survivors of the death of their son. When he tells the story of how he learned of his son being shot but then of his son passing, it is so eloquent and so compelling. And he talks about the shriek, the cry, the scream of a mother who has just found out that her child is dead from a gunshot. How much of this can we take? It is always impressive, I have to say, to witness the degree of tolerance that our colleagues have for the pain of others. How much pain do people have to suffer for people to hear, to learn, to judge? Was it George Bernard Shaw who said the sign of a truly intelligent person is that he is informed by statistics? The statistics are overwhelming: 91 a day; over 1,000 mass murders, which is defined as 4 or more people being slaughtered in 1 incident--all of that since Newtown. I know my time is drawing short, but I will just say this: these are statistics. More important than that, they are human lives. How many more human lives? How many shrieks of mothers learning--and dads as well. He spoke of hearing his wife's shriek; the piercing sound of a mother's scream. I heard one of the mothers from Orlando when she was suspicious that her son might have been killed. She said: I don't know. We don't have any evidence, but nobody has seen him. He isn't at the hospital. I am afraid I have become a member of the club, the club of women, moms who have lost their children. It is a terrible club to be a member of, and I want to speak out against gun violence so that there aren't more moms added to the club. But that doesn't seem to resonate with our colleagues. They don't even give the courtesy of attendance to hear the concerns that people have. Is it indifference? Do they not know or do they not care? Or is it some combination? Whatever it is, it is a disgrace to our oath of office to protect the American people. Be assured of this, be assured of this: we are not going away. You will see us. You will see the faces of those moms, all the organizations that have come together, the millions of people, the high percentages, 85, 90 percent of the American people of all parties and no parties who support the legislation that we are asking for. We are not going away until we have commonsense gun violence prevention laws passed in our country to save lives, to save lives. That is the challenge we offer to our Republican colleagues.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the ambush and murder of police officers during a peaceful protest is a tragedy that tears at the heart of every American. I agree with the Speaker that episodes like this must not harden our divisions, but should unify us as a country. We are all horrified by this despicable act of violence, and we share in the shock and grief for the officers killed, their loved ones, and the entire Dallas community. When these officers left their homes earlier in the day, there was always the chance that they would be in danger. Right now, we don't even know the names of all of them. The names have not been released. But I do want to acknowledge DART Officer Brent Thompson and those whose names are yet to be released, as well as those who are wounded, including one civilian. Many questions have yet to be answered. But whatever the motivation of the perpetrators of this horrible crime, it is clear that those perpetrators of this vile act have an agenda of evil. The past few days have seen too much death and too much heartbreak. As Reverend Martin Luther King wrote: ``Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.'' That, of course, reminds me of our glorious song of St. Francis, which is the anthem of my city of San Francisco, that I call upon now. St. Francis appealed to the Lord: Make me an instrument of thy peace. Where there is darkness, may I bring light. Where there is hatred, may I bring love. Where there is despair, may I bring hope. I associate myself with the remark of our Speaker when he referenced our President: ``Justice will be done.'' Justice must be done. Also, mercy must be done. As we do that, as we seek mercy and justice, I also want to reference a remark of the mayor of Dallas when he said we must get to the root causes of what happened last night. In that spirit, I want to also acknowledge Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge and Philando Castile. We have to get the facts and get to the root causes of what caused these tragedies. In the spirit of Martin Luther King and of St. Francis of Assisi, we must continue to do the work of nonviolence and demand an end to senseless killing everywhere. We must do so sharing our common values, our faith, and the dignity and worth of every person, the spark of divinity that lives in all of them, and our tremendous, tremendous grief in the loss of life. Just, in particular, for the families of the police officers, thank you. Thank you for sharing your loved ones with us. We pray that it is a comfort to you that so many people mourn your loss and are praying for you at this sad time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his excellent work in bringing this bipartisan legislation to the floor. With all due respect to Mr. Goodlatte, I credibly come to the floor to say that this bill does not provide the funding that we need to address the opioid crisis in our country. I thank Mr. Upton again. I know this is his last year as chairman of the committee. I thank him for his openness, his willingness to work in a bipartisan way, and I do think that this is a good piece of legislation. It is lacking one thing: the resources to get the job done. I also come to the floor as an appropriator, and to hear Mr. Goodlatte say what is coming out of here and coming out of there, in our subcommittee on Labor/HHS, we call it the lamb-eat-lamb committee because there was no good place to take money from. We had carefully and economically husbanded the resources in such a way, when we did budget agreements, to use the money very well for its purposes: the investments in education and health, et cetera. So when an emergency comes along like the opioid epidemic, like Zika, like Flint, these are emergencies, and by tradition, this House has always declared emergencies--whether a natural disaster or otherwise-- to say that funding would not be lamb-eat-lamb within the appropriations process and take funds from very needed initiatives that Congress had agreed to in our own authorizations otherwise. So it had been my intention for us to come to the floor to oppose this bill to be able to sustain a Presidential veto until there would be resources. But in the spirit of this day, we come to the floor instead to say let's move the process along, but let's also say that there are other issues, like opioids, and Zika, and Flint that we really have to address in the near term. The opioid epidemic, as it has been said by the distinguished chairman and ranking member and others, is such an important challenge to the well-being of our country. While you may say Flint is in Michigan and Zika is down south, the fact is they affect all of us. But opioids are right there in all of our communities, and all of the Members of Congress immediately see the need for the authorization but also for the funding. The opioid conference report includes many important authorizing provisions in a bipartisan way, but it does not include the new funds that are essential to saving lives from opioids. Around a dozen law enforcement people were at the White House yesterday talking about the opioid epidemic. Many people outside of the Congress support the principles in this bill. But do you know that some of those law enforcement officials are having separate fundraisers of their own in order to help people address their opioid challenge? We are just not living up to our responsibility in a timely fashion. Within the next week, hopefully, we will leave with some additional funding. The President has asked for $1.1 billion to address the problem. The distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary says that the appropriators are putting more than that in certain cases in opioids; but if they are taking it out of other priorities, other investments in the health and well-being and the security of the American people, we are doing this at the expense of other good investments. We will not stop fighting until America's families have the prevention, treatment, and recovery resources they need to overcome the opioid epidemic, and that is why for today, although the votes are there to sustain a Presidential veto, we don't encourage that. We encourage our cooperation today with the hope and the promise that Mr. Rogers, whom we all respect--I served with him on Appropriations-- and Mrs. Lowey can come to terms in a way that does not have the opioid epidemic funded at the expense of other investments important to the American people. It is a priority. It is an emergency. In other cases we have had emergency spending for just that. When we do budget agreements, as we did last year--very difficult staying under the caps and the rest--it was not with the idea that there would be a $1.1 billion need for opioids or $1.9 billion need for Zika funding or there wouldn't be hundreds of millions of dollars for Flint. These are extraordinary emergencies. They should be treated that way. Nonetheless, I congratulate Mr. Upton and Mr. Pallone and all who had a role in putting this legislation together. I hope that it is just a first step that in the very, very near future we will have money to match the values that are contained in this legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Carolyn Ann Sanders, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the House floor.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background check legislation, to honor, once again, the memory of Carolyn Ann Sanders, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the House floor.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Garamendi for his consistent, persistent leadership in these Special Orders to put forth issues of concern to the American people. Right now, we are talking about saving lives. We are talking about responsible background checks on gun purchases as well no fly, no buy. If you are on the terrorist list, if you can't fly, then you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. What is so difficult about that for our Republican majority to understand? Actually, on the background check legislation, we are talking about expanding the background check bill that already exists to include Internet sales, something relatively new--not new compared to when we passed the bill in the middle nineties--and we are talking about gun shows. This would save lives to have background checks on everyone who is there to purchase a gun. Eighty-five percent of the American people support responsible legislation for background checks, which is what we are proposing, and 90 percent support no fly, no buy. The only place where there is an obstacle to this reasonable commonsense legislation is on the floor of the House of Representatives. I am so proud of our Members led by John Lewis 2 weeks ago, tomorrow, who led the sit-in on the floor of the House. It was remarkable, and it generated interest throughout the world--over 2 billion impressions from what went out from the floor of this House--something remarkable, something appropriate for the people's House. Then, following that, for this to go on for 25 hours and then to continue over the weeks when we were in recess into our districts, to have the beat go on. Now we are back, and the beat will continue to go on. I think if there is one message of hope that John Lewis gave all of us, it is that we are not going away until the job is done. So, respectfully, I ask our Speaker of the House to give us a vote, to enable us to show the support that commonsense, sensible gun safety legislation has in this House. I believe that, if given the opportunity, this House would support that legislation. Maybe that is why it will not be brought up. But I will also associate myself with the concerns expressed by Mr. Garamendi about a bill, the Cornyn bill. I think it has a new name in the House. It is the gun lobby bill--the gun lobby bill--the NRA bill. It is not a gun safety bill. It is an excuse for not doing something really effective and sensible. So you will be seeing the stories of the people and the families affected, the most eloquent stories of all, their stories of their loss, and they are channeling their grief to make sure it doesn't happen to other families. What a beautiful sense of community. We thank John Lewis for being the unifier in all of that, and we thank all of our Members for their participation. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).