Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding, and I thank him for his tremendous leadership to keep our homeland secure. I come to the floor with the deepest sympathy for those lost in Orlando. Of course, all of our prayers and thoughts are with their families. Earlier this week, we had a moment of silence, another moment of silence; silence, which was followed by silence, silence, silence. No action. Today, on this floor, we are taking up legislation which is the legislative equivalent of silence. We are putting some warmed-over stew bills that have passed the House, combined in one bill, once again, to go forward. But we are not taking the action necessary, action that has bipartisan support overwhelmingly in the country and has sufficient support in this House to be passed. I beseech our Republican colleagues to join us in the no fly, no buy legislation, which 87 percent of the public overwhelmingly-- Republicans, Independents, and even NRA members--support. It has support in our country. It has understanding in our country. The only place that it runs into trouble is in the House of Representatives. The Senate has said now that they will promise a vote after a substantial and most remarkable filibuster on the part of Senator Chris Murphy all day yesterday and into the night. The American people saw what the challenge was in getting something done in Congress. He was promised a vote. I hope that we can have a vote in the House on two bills that are overwhelmingly supported by the public and have bipartisan support in the House. Of course, we have the one bill: no fly, no buy. That means if you are on the no-fly list, you cannot buy a gun. In addition to that, we have the bill that has, by consensus, been put together for sensible, reasonable background checks. That means, no matter what the weapon is, unless you can pass a background check, you can't buy it, whether it is a pistol or an AK-47. Shamefully, the assault weapon ban has expired. There are those in our midst who would like to remove the sunset from that bill, and that is another conversation. Right now, today, we are asking for two things. One, no fly, no buy. Two, the Peter King of New York and Mike Thompson of California--a Republican and a Democrat--cosponsored bills which would pass this House, if given a vote. I have seen some criticism on the part of the Republican leadership in the House of those who have tired of doing moments of silence. I, myself, think that it is appropriate for us to do that, but it is no substitute for action. We have to question the sincerity of it, if we mourn and don't act. We carry the names of these young people who were killed in Orlando in our hearts. It is clearly a hate crime. It is the one place where we see very clearly where gun safety and homeland security come together. Whatever the percentage of motivation was--terrorism, and the other, a hate crime--on the part of the perpetrator, it doesn't matter. What matters is that it was an assault on our homeland security. And what matters is that it was a hate crime motivated in this pub where many LGBT community members were gathered. Let's lower the temperature on our interactions with each other. We have said over and over again: Here we go with another moment of silence. If we were real about it, if we were sincere about it, we would act upon it. Clearly, we are all complicit, as long as we have moments of silence and no legislation. We are not a commemorative body. Yes, we have our resolutions and moments of silence, but we are a legislative body, and we are supposed to provide solutions. We are supposed to work together as much as possible in a bipartisan way for those solutions. We are supposed to be a reflection, a representative of the American people. The American people are so far ahead of us in terms of common sense-- commonsense legislation: if you are on the no fly list, you can't buy a gun; no fly, no buy--and common sense in saying that we want to have reasonable, commonsense background checks, which has bipartisan support in the House. I say it over and over again. We have said we are Paris; we are Orlando. But what are we? We are doing nothing. It would be the equivalent of somebody who is very sick and the doctor says: I am going to give you a get well card, but I am not going to give you any antidote for the pain or the problem that you have. And this is what we have become, words, not deeds; words, not action. The Gospel of James--I don't know if Mr. Clyburn, when he spoke earlier, spoke about James, the Book of James, act deeds, not words. And we are not even words. We are silent. We are silent. So I beseech my colleagues to listen to the American people, to understand the pain. And this happens so frequently. Since Orlando, 100 people have been shot in gun violence across our country--that was as of yesterday, may be more by this morning. So it is not just about the mass murders, as appalling as they are and how strongly they hit home; it is about what is happening in the streets of our country on a regular basis. As I said, and I say this, I cannot see how, with all the good intentions of silence and the rest of it, that this Congress can be a handmaiden of the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America. We are here to represent the people, and we should be doing that. Again, this is heartbreaking. Newtown was heartbreaking. Aurora was heartbreaking. Columbine was heartbreaking. The reference our colleague made earlier to assault on our military facilities is heartbreaking. The assault on a Planned Parenthood clinic is heartbreaking. It is not right. This isn't how we debate, discuss, disagree, come to solutions, not with guns. We all respect the Second Amendment. We all respect the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean in an unfettered way, by people who have no business having them because of their orientation. Let's have background checks to check that. We can work together on the no fly, no buy in terms of how people are informed, how law enforcement is informed across the board. But we cannot go down a path that has been suggested by some who say, okay, let's do that; now take it to court. Well, by the time you take it to court, more people will die, just as Mr. Clyburn stated, as we are observing the June 17, 1-year anniversary of the South Carolina massacre. If you are not denied in 3 days, then you are cleared, when they had a technical error that cleared somebody who should not have been cleared. So let's make it right, but let's do something. Let's act on the values that we share to protect and defend the American people. That's our first responsibility in terms of national security, in terms of homeland security, in terms of community and personal security. Let's not use these bills that we are taking up, once again, as an excuse, as if we did something. No, we didn't do anything more. We are just trying to make it look as if we did, and that is really incriminating the Congress of the United States, when we know what to do, we have bipartisan support to do it. So I beseech our colleagues to join together, in a nonpartisan way, to do the right thing, exercise common sense on behalf of the American people. Again, we are Orlando.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise with Representatives Jackie Speier, Jared Huffman, Mike Thompson, Barbara Lee, Anna Eshoo and Eric Swalwell to honor Rabbi Doug Kahn as he retires as Executive Director of the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, Sonoma, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. For 34 years, Rabbi Kahn has served with distinction and led with integrity. Rabbi Kahn's analytical mind, diplomatic skills, endless energy and compassion have earned him the admiration of people around the world. As a consensus builder and community leader, Rabbi Kahn has dedicated his life to answering the sacred call, ``tikkun olam,'' to repair the world. Since 1938, JCRC has been committed to improving relations between the Jewish community and the community at-large. A strong advocate for the Bay Area Jewish community, Rabbi Kahn has masterfully managed sensitive and challenging issues, built bridges with Americans of many faiths, interests, and ethnic groups. Under his leadership, JCRC confronted anti-Semitism, the oppression of Soviet Jews, and anti-Israel activities on college campuses. A fourth-generation San Franciscan, Doug Kahn was born in 1951 to a family that discussed current events around the dinner table. The Civil Rights Movement and protests against the Vietnam War sparked his passion for social justice. As a UC Berkeley student in 1971, he joined the Bay Area Council for Soviet Jewry and, at great personal risk, traveled to the Soviet Union. Inspired by that journey, he attended rabbinical school in Israel, where he immersed himself in Jewish traditions and developed a personal connection to the Jewish faith. In 1979, the Reform Movement's Hebrew Union College ordained Rabbi Kahn. He then served as the executive director of George Washington University Hillel. In 1981, Rabbi Kahn returned to San Francisco and joined JCRC as assistant director. During the Soviet Jewry exodus, Rabbi Kahn fought for the freedom of Soviet Jews. Influenced by his two mentors, legends in our community, then-JCRC Director Earl Raab and Associate Director Rita Semel, Rabbi Kahn helped mobilize the community. In 1987, Rabbi Kahn and a cheering crowd welcomed to San Francisco ``refusenik'' Natan Sharansky, who had been freed from a Soviet prison. Later that year, Rabbi Kahn was promoted to Associate Director of JCRC and in 1999, he became Executive Director following the retirements of Raab and Semel. Rabbi Kahn has built strong interfaith and interethnic relationships with African American, Asian American, Latino and Muslim American communities championing civil rights, employment, housing, equality in education, immigration, nuclear nonproliferation, domestic violence prevention, marriage equality and the end of apartheid in South Africa. In the face of crises and tragedy, Rabbi Kahn built bridges. From standing on the pulpit at San Francisco's Third Baptist Church in affirmation of a strong African American-Jewish alliance after the Rodney King verdict to performing outreach to the local Bosnian Muslim community after the brutal human rights violations against Bosnians in the 1992-95 civil war, and more recently, standing in solidarity with Muslim Americans threatened by Islamophobia, Rabbi Kahn and the JCRC have made our communities stronger. Although Rabbi Kahn is leaving JCRC, he will continue to offer his wisdom and superb skills for JCRC's values and priorities. My colleagues and I hope his departure from JCRC will allow Rabbi Kahn to spend more time with Ellen, his beloved wife, and their two sons, Joey and Daniel. Mr. Speaker, we ask the House of Representatives to join us in celebrating the outstanding contributions our good friend Rabbi Doug Kahn has made to the Bay Area and beyond. His moral compass, eternal optimism, unwavering dedication and perseverance have profoundly strengthened our communities.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for calling this Special Order this evening. Special it is, indeed, as we welcome His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, to Washington, D.C. Tomorrow, in a bipartisan way, House and Senate Democrats and Republicans will join in welcoming His Holiness. He is among one of the things we all agree on--his greatness and the honor he brings us with his visit. Madam Speaker, I completely associate myself with every word of Mr. McGovern's comments. He talked about our visit to Lhasa, to Tibet, and to other places in China. We called him Mr. McGovern's spiritual leader of our visit. As the co-chair of the Lantos Human Rights Commission of the House of Representatives, he truly believes, as His Holiness says and as I heard him say today, that we are all God's children, and that is how we have to treat each other. In listening to our colleagues of the previous Special Order, who were members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who discussed various issues of justice--social justice, health justice, and the rest--and who talked about Orlando, it focuses on how special His Holiness' visit is. In coming the day after the terrible massacre of many in the LGBT community, it is really something that should be a comfort to all of us. His Holiness' message of peace, of compassion, of respect for every person is a message of hope that is needed today, tomorrow, and the next day, which are the days His Holiness will be here, but it is needed as we go forward as well. He is a truly great man. When I awoke this morning so sad about what happened yesterday, I was full of hope about hearing what His Holiness would have to say about our responsibilities to each other. Our colleague mentioned our November CODEL. It was something that many of us had been hoping to do for many years. We had been trying for 25 years to get a visa to visit Tibet, and the President of China gave us that opportunity. We went there to see, to learn, to observe, and to make judgments. We did not go there to burn bridges; we went there to build bridges. As Congressman McGovern said, we saw some areas in which we could work together, and we came back with some resolve, hopefully, to get other bridge building done. I have seen His Holiness on many occasions. When he first came to Congress, I was brand new in Congress. He came under the auspices of Mr. Lantos, for whom the Human Rights Commission is named, and he brought us together in a group to listen to His Holiness' plan of action. It included respect for the environment and autonomy for Tibet but not independence. That was over 25 years ago that he had been talking about autonomy. While sometimes the Chinese Government doesn't accept that characterization, it is why many of us support His Holiness. As I mentioned earlier, he has friends on both sides of the aisle on both sides of the Capitol and also down Pennsylvania Avenue. I remember with great pride when we presented His Holiness with a Congressional Gold Medal--again, with great bipartisan support. President Bush came. Not only that--and a bigger honor yet--Mrs. Laura Bush came as well. What an honor for His Holiness and what an honor for our country that our President showed that respect. On that day when we talked about it, we had so many good things to say about His Holiness. One of the things was his unstinting support for peace as a positive example of how to make the world a better place--peace in the world, peace in our country, peace in our communities, peace in our families, peace in ourselves. That inner peace is what he has been preaching. On this trip, we can see His Holiness as he embodies the wisdom and the courage to maintain what he calls a peaceful mind in a modern world, and we look forward to hearing what he has to say about that. In addition to saying we are all God's children and of the respect we need to have for each other and of the compassion that he advocates, His Holiness says that great changes start with individuals. I will tell this story, which, I think, some may find amusing. His Holiness is a gentle man. While he has big challenges and while he is the leader and the champion in the advocacy--I wouldn't use the word ``fight'' as he doesn't like words like that--for respecting the culture, the language, and the religion of the Tibetan people and the autonomy for them as a people, he does so in a very gentle way. I met him here in the Capitol for the first time, and I saw him in Rio at the time of the Earth Summit in 1992, where he spoke as a religious leader. We also acknowledged that he was the first winner of the Nobel Prize--it was part of his proclamation and why he won--for his contribution in protecting the environment. It was the first environmental consideration in a Nobel Prize. How beautiful that was. I have seen him here many times, in California, in New York--you name it--and in Dharamsala, which is where he lives in India. Anyway, we were taking a delegation there to visit--a bipartisan, large delegation to visit him there. And we saw some of the people right after the crackdown in Tibet-- coincidentally, we had our trip planned for a long time, but it happened to occur right after that crackdown. So many people were coming in from Tibet telling us what they saw there. It was pretty brutal, the reports that they gave us, and it was so sad. So later in the day, when we had lunch with the couple hundred lamas from all over India, that part of India, many of them Tibetan Buddhist lamas, I explained what I had seen that morning and how transformative it was to see people get firsthand knowledge of the humanity of man and that we had to do something about it. We had our Members there. One was going to help with this, and one was going to help with that. You know, there were all these things that we were going to do to help these people. And then I said what I always said: if freedom-loving people do not speak out against oppression in Tibet because of our commercial interests with China, then we surrender all moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world. Tibet remains a challenge to the conscience of the world, and we must respond to that. When I was finished, His Holiness spoke to the lamas there, and he said to the lamas: Now, let us all pray so that we could rid Nancy of her negative attitudes. Well, I thought I was making the fight, but I am not going to be holier than His Holiness. A gentle approach is what he thinks is best and respectful. I take some level of pride in telling our Chinese friends--and they are our friends. He is your friend, too, in terms of damping down any, shall we say, exuberance when we learn what we consider to be grave injustices and human rights violations. In honor of His Holiness' 80th birthday last summer--Richard Gere is the chairman of the International Campaign for Tibet and has really been a champion for His Holiness and the Tibetan people--Richard Gere and I wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed, and in it we said there is no better way to honor the Dalai Lama than by standing with him and the Tibetan people vowing to keep their cause alive. It is a beautiful culture, indeed. To hear His Holiness, as I did today, speak in Tibetan, which I didn't understand except through translation, and have him explain that the Tibetan language is a beautiful language in specifics, in terms of explaining Buddhism and matters of faith and philosophy because of its intricacies. It enhances your appreciation and understanding of Buddhism to hear it in the words of the Tibetan language, and translated from Tibetan in terms of the intricacies of the language that you would need to translate it into English or another language. So this language is important to the faith of Buddhism. It is important to the culture. It is important to the families. It is important, again, to the education of the children. And the attempts on the part of the Chinese to resettle Han Chinese, dilute the population of Tibetans in Tibet, is something that would be just really wrong, just plain and simple wrong. Again, it is a challenge to the conscience. This morning, His Holiness spoke at the United States Institute of Peace, and he said real change comes through action. He said: You all ask me for my blessing, and people say nice things, but real change comes through action. If I understood it correctly in the translation, he said that karma is not necessarily just about fate. It is about acting, action, taking action. So we all need to take action in what we believe in. Again, every opportunity I get--and I thank the distinguished gentleman, the conscience of our codel and chair of the Tom Lantos Commission on Human Rights. Every opportunity I get, and this is one of them that I treasure on the floor of the House, to say what an honor it is to even be in the same room, the same place with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, a revered figure throughout the world. The Dalai Lama's name is synonymous with everything that is good, and that is what we emphasized to our Chinese host. We had to move, as Mr. McGovern said, beyond their outmoded thinking into another place. In terms of His Holiness, tomorrow when he comes to the Capitol, I will look forward to thanking him for his tremendous, inspiring leadership. ``Inspiration'' is such an inadequate word when it comes to what he is. We thank him for sharing the strength of his determination in pursuit of peace. He was speaking about it today in terms of something that might take some years. We may not see it, some of us--you might, Mr. McGovern; I might not--a time when the world was completely at peace. When he laughs, it is something very special. We hear the joyousness that transcends despair. In his words, we receive a message of hope and humanity when he is with us. In his presence, we feel inspired to make a difference, to make a difference in ourselves and in our world. I talked earlier about President Bush coming to the Congressional Gold Medal ceremony, and I know that the President will be receiving His Holiness this week. Presidents have done that over time, which is a source of great pride for us in our country and in the relationship between His Holiness and our President. But it goes a long way back. I will just close by saying, when His Holiness was a very little boy and he became the Dalai Lama, he received a gift from the President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt; and he loved it because it was a watch, and the watch had the phases of the Moon. Actually, my Apple watch has the phases of the Sun. The watch had the phases of the Moon, and how prescient President Franklin Roosevelt was to send this little boy this watch, who would become so interested in science and thinking and the brain and faith and what the connection was among all of those factors. But again, the relationship between an American President and His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, goes back to when he was a little boy, and it persists into his eighties now. That is something that, again, brings luster to us in our country that we have such a beautiful relationship with such a spiritual figure in the world. So I look forward to welcoming him here tomorrow. Again, as I said to him today: You could not have come at a better time when we are so in mourning about what happened in Orlando to our LGBT loved ones, to their families, to the community in Orlando. We are grateful to the response of our first responders there and our law enforcement officials and local officials there. Again, it is the spirituality that we need to recover and draw strength to go forward to make sure that we minimize any such actions that hopefully they never happen again. How wonderful that His Holiness is here to bring us that comfort. With that, I am pleased and with great gratitude to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for being such a champion of human rights throughout the world. He and Mr. Pitts, his Republican counterpart, as co-chairs of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, do a great service to our Congress and to our country. They honor our values, the respect for the dignity and worth of every person, recognizing that we are all God's children. We all have a spark of divinity in us, and they always are speaking truth to power. I thank them for their commitment and for their courage, and to you, Mr. McGovern, for calling this Special Order today.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise and commend the leadership of Chairman Bishop. I thank the gentleman for bringing us here today, as well as our ranking member, Mr. Grijalva, for bringing this compromise legislation to the floor. It is with the deepest of pride that I join my colleagues, Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez and Congressman Jose Serrano, in support of this legislation. Although we have concerns about some elements of it, we support it on balance. I can't help but mention to my colleagues here that in April, many of you were there when Congress bestowed the Congressional Gold Medal on the legendary 65th Infantry Regiment, a largely Puerto Rican regiment that served with valor since World War I. Honor et Fidelitas, honor and fidelity, so rings the motto of this courageous regiment of Americans. With honor and fidelity, the 65th Regiment overcame prejudice and bigotry and wrote a new chapter of heroism in our shared American story. In the Panama Canal Zone in World War I, on the doorsteps of Nazi Germany, in the defining crucible of the Korean War, and beyond, the Borinqueneers protected freedom abroad and advanced dignity at home. Their daring on the battlefield helped break down the discrimination facing Puerto Rican and Latino Americans across our country. They enriched our Nation with the strength of their service, through the excellence of their example, and the power of their bravery. Their valor under fire is nothing short of legendary. The heroic service of the Borinqueneers is one of the true great American stories. I bring this to mind because on that day in Emancipation Hall, which was crowded with people, and the presentations were led by the bipartisan, bicameral House and Senate, Democrat and Republican leadership who had representatives of our military to salute the bravery of these people of Puerto Rico in defense of our country. Now we have nearly 100,000 veterans in Puerto Rico who will be affected, harmed, unless we act today. Today, more than 3 million of our fellow American citizens in Puerto Rico are facing a fiscal and public debt emergency that threatens their economy, their communities, and their families. Only Congress can provide Puerto Rico with the tools it needs to emerge from this crisis. After long bipartisan negotiations, we achieved a restructuring process that meets the test of workability. Does it work? Will it happen? This is not a bailout. Some people are trying to describe it as such for some other purposes. I know that my colleague from Puerto Rico, Pedro Pierluisi, has explained to us the urgency of this. I know that we would have, perhaps, had a bill that didn't have some of the provisions in it that are in it, and we would have preferred to add some better things to the bill, but that is not the choice before us. As legislators, we have to make a choice: will the bill alleviate the challenge that the people of Puerto Rico are facing? Our Resident Commissioner, Pedro Pierluisi, thinks that this bill does achieve that, and I thank him for his courageous leadership on all of this. Again, this can be a very passionate discussion. It is an emotional one because it involves the lives of people that some of us know and are part of the families of our Members, as Jose Serrano and Nydia Velazquez mentioned. But we have to be dispassionate in how we make a judgment about how we can solve the problem, and we have that opportunity today. The oversight board that President Obama will appoint is one that will have the opportunity to implement the restructuring as described in this legislation. On a bipartisan basis, we will be submitting names to the President promptly so that he can appoint the oversight board. It would be my commitment to make sure that the commitment from the House Democrats is for there to be one from Puerto Rico representing the people of Puerto Rico on that board. In addition to the oversight board, this legislation also contains a task force, a Members' task force whose task it is to look at impediments in Federal law to Puerto Rico's economic growth. I would hope that that task force would afford us the opportunity to see other ways that we can help the economic growth of Puerto Rico, for the citizens, our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico. We can talk about parity in relationship to Medicare, Medicaid, and the rest. We can talk about the earned income tax credit, which we enjoy in the United States, and having that be more available in Puerto Rico. We can talk about ways to use the Tax Code to give more opportunity there. So I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. Even though it is not the bill that either one side would have written, it is a compromise. But it will provide the people of Puerto Rico the tools to overcome the crisis and move forward, hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe $1 billion a year. It will alleviate Puerto Rico from having to commit, because of the restructuring, and will enable it to meet the needs of the people of Puerto Rico as it gets back on its feet. Puerto Rico's economic success is important to the United States. Our economic growth and job creation plans must include our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico. I would hope, with the task force; I would hope with future legislation, as we go forward, we will recognize how close our connection is, how important it is for Puerto Rico to survive, and express our gratitude to the people of Puerto Rico for the vitality they bring to the United States of America, and for the security that so many Puerto Ricans risk their lives to protect our country. With that, I urge our colleagues to pray over it and conclude, as our three colleagues, Congresswoman Velazquez, Congressman Serrano, Congressman Pierluisi have concluded, that, on balance, we must move forward for the benefit of the veterans, for the people, for their children, for the citizens of Puerto Rico. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his forceful arguments against this reckless rule that is before us today. I rise, Mr. Speaker, in strong opposition to the rule and, really, in a state of wonderment, wonderment about how on earth this Congress of the United States can be so insensitive to a challenge to the American people. It is our responsibility to honor our preamble to the Constitution, to promote the general welfare. That is in the preamble of our Constitution, which we take an oath to defend. The distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma, whom I respect, said just be patient. No. No. Ninety-four days since the President of the United States asked for the amount of resources necessary to address the Zika crisis, an amount of money that was requested by the scientists, documented by the urgency of this challenge for the research and for the prevention and for the resources needed to address this public health emergency. I rise not only as the House Democratic leader, I rise as a mother and a grandmother, and I speak to parents and grandparents in this body because that is all I am allowed to speak to. The questions that I have for you are: How can we ignore the President's scientifically based request expressed in the words of Dr. Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, a person, a healthcare leader in our country, a researcher, a scientist who has been described by President George Herbert Walker Bush as a hero--as a hero--in his work for the American people and their public health? Dr. Fauci says: If we don't get the money that the President has asked for, the $1.9 billion, that is going to have a very serious negative impact on our ability to get the job done. Another scientist, Dr. Tom Frieden, Director of the Centers for Disease Control, the public health agency to stop this threat, said: Never before in history has there been a situation where a bite from a mosquito can result in devastating fetal malformation. Testimony went on to say that we are talking about children with irreversible brain damage who will never be able to walk, talk, see, or hear, children whose care over a lifetime is estimated to cost more than $10 million. The money is one thing. The devastation to that child and to that family is far more consequential. So the $1.9 billion is a great deal of money. It is an emergency. It is a small price to pay to prevent irreversible brain damage in our children. It is a small price to pay instead of saying to families: Don't think about having children now because of this epidemic. The Republicans are treating the threat of Zika with so little seriousness that they decided to use the crisis as an opportunity to eliminate protections for the water that our children drink. The so-called Zika Vector Control Act the Republicans are adding to this package this morning that they are asking you to vote for is nothing but a longstanding and craven repackaged Republican effort to gut the Clean Water Act. It is a pesticide Trojan horse that will do nothing to protect Americans from Zika. This is really a dishonoring of our responsibility to protect and defend our fellow Americans. As our distinguished member of the Committee on Rules mentioned, this is a defense issue. It is about protecting the American people. This proposal today puts forth one-third of what the President has asked for--one-third. People say: Aren't you happy with one-third of a loaf? It is not one-third of a loaf. It is one-third of a shoe. You cannot get there from here with one-third. It is really an insult to the scientists who have spoken out. Actually, it is one-third of the President's request, but it is one- fifth of what the CDC has requested for the public health activities. We must elevate the importance of the public health responsibility that we have. If we had a natural disaster, FEMA has funds to come to the rescue of the American people. That is our compact with the American people, to help them in ways that they could never help themselves because of the scope of the challenge. This is no less a challenge. In fact, it would probably result in more loss of life, malformation of unborn children. On top of that, think of the negative impact it will have, distrust to travel to certain regions in our country. This is so reckless. Just when I thought I had seen it all on the part of the Republicans in the Congress to disregard meeting the needs of the American people, along comes this incomprehensible explanation to anybody why this might be a proposal worthy of the floor of the House, worthy of the public health challenge to the American people, worthy of our concerns about the American people. My Republican colleagues, you have outdone yourselves today. What you are doing is reckless. In this bill, we should be meeting this challenge the way we meet emergencies: with adequate resources, which will end up saving money because they will be an investment in the health of the American people. It has been over 90 days since the President has made the request. I will just say this one other thing. It is not our role to instill fear, but we have to face the challenge in a very clear-eyed way. The virus from this mosquito is sexually transmitted. We have no idea--it could be as long as 18 months--how long it would reside in a gentleman who might be bitten by the mosquito. It could be over a year, it could be shorter, but it is not one night. Secondly, if you get bitten by this mosquito when you travel someplace where it might be pervasive, you not only get bitten yourself, you bring it home. Again, it is sexually transmitted. It is transmitted in even more pervasive ways. Any other garden variety mosquito that would bite you, who have already been bitten by the other mosquito, now is a carrier of that virus. We turn garden variety mosquitoes into an army on the assault of the public health of the American people. So, again, as a mother and a grandmother, as a parent, and for the fathers and grandfathers who serve here, think of the children, think of the risk, think of the responsibility that we have. Think of the irresponsibility of this bill before us today and the reckless disregard for public health in our country that the Republicans are putting forth in this legislation, and vote ``no.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I pay tribute to W. Brewster Ely IV on the occasion of his retirement as Headmaster of Town School for Boys in San Francisco, after more than a quarter of a century of inspiring and thoughtful educational leadership and service to the San Francisco community. I join generations of Town School students, families, educators and staff in expressing our deepest appreciation and gratitude to Mr. Ely for the indelible mark he has left on a treasured San Francisco institution and on the lives of all who passed through its halls. Brewster Ely arrived at Town School in 1989, carrying the strong personal values and traditions of his family--following in his father's footsteps as an educator, and as a headmaster himself for 24 years. During his 27 years as Headmaster, Ely helped countless students discover their strengths and talents, pursue their dreams, express their creativity and develop their unique character. Each and every morning, Headmaster Ely greeted his students with a handshake that conveyed his commitment to their education, his respect for their well- being, and the promise of a bright future. With Ely's leadership, the campus has been dramatically transformed and the performing arts and athletic programs expanded. He has had a significant and lasting impact on every aspect of Town School life. When he retires, Ely will have served as Headmaster for more than a third of the Town School's nearly 80-year history. Headmaster Ely also worked to support the educational opportunities of those beyond the Town School. In 1990 Ely co-founded Project Discover, an educational summer camp serving low income children in the San Francisco Bay Area. He created the New Teacher Institute which trains new educators and administrators to carry on the academic excellence and values of Town School throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, and further. Brewster Ely has been deeply committed to our San Francisco community. He has served on the boards of the San Francisco Zoo, the Boys and Girls Clubs of San Francisco, KIPP Bay Area Schools, Carney Sandoe and Associates, Stevenson School and the International Boys' Schools Coalition, of which he was president. I join the Town School Community in thanking Brewster Ely's family, his wife Nancy and his children Jenny, Jamie and Katherine for sharing their magnificent husband and father with the San Francisco community. My husband Paul and our son Paul Jr., a Town School alumnus, join me in wishing Brewster Ely an enjoyable and rewarding future.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, happy St. Patrick's Day to you. What a way House Republicans have chosen to celebrate St. Patrick's Day. Today we pay tribute to the contributions of generations of Irish immigrants and their descendants to the fabric of America. Today we are reminded that ours is truly a nation of immigrants--that immigrants have truly made America more American with their optimism, their hope, and their courage to come to America, and to make a future better for their families. That is what America is all about, and that is what immigrants have strengthened. We have spent this entire week with our Irish friends celebrating the heritage of immigrants in America. The Taoiseach--that would be the Prime Minister of Ireland--was here in the Capitol earlier in the week. He spoke about immigration last night at the dinner. In the letter that was read by the Irish Ambassador from the Taoiseach, he talked about immigration. Here on the floor of the House, we are talking about immigration in a totally negative way. Why would House Republicans want to spend St. Patrick's Day in this insulting manner to Irish immigrants? House Republicans have brought forward a resolution authorizing the Speaker to file an anti-immigrant amicus brief with the Supreme Court, but they won't tell the House or the American people what they are planning to say in it. Given Republicans' past positions and rhetoric, that raises serious questions: Will the Republicans yet again call for tearing apart families? Will they call for deporting DREAMers? Will they yet again suggest a religious test for prospective immigrants? Will they ask the Court to explore ending birthright American citizenship, as they did in their Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee hearing? Sadly, there is not much difference between the rhetoric of the Republican candidate for President and House Republicans when it comes to a record of appalling anti-immigrant statements--an agenda of discrimination. Furthermore, Republicans have denied House Democrats the opportunity to have a meaningful vote on our alternative amicus brief in support of the President's immigration executive actions, which we filed with the Court last week, 225 House and Senate Democrats. The fact is the President's immigration actions fall within the legal and constitutional precedent established by every administration, Republican and Democrat, since President Eisenhower. The fact is the President has the right to take these administrative actions under the law, and he also is following in the precedents of former Presidents to do so. I don't know if the Republicans were silent or didn't know what was going on when President Reagan went further in his administrative actions on immigration in terms of affecting a higher percentage of immigrants than President Obama's actions have affected. The President is acting because Congress has refused to act to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Even when the Republicans in the Senate had a bipartisan bill, it did not get the chance to have a vote in this House. So the President has acted. President Reagan, to his credit, acted even after Congress acted, and he signed their bill into law, and then he said back to Congress that you didn't go far enough to protect families. So he initiated, by executive action, Family Fairness. That was carried on by President George Herbert Walker Bush, and the spirit of all of that was carried on by President George W. Bush, all of those, including President Clinton in between and President Obama, were strong, strong advocates for comprehensive immigration reform and respecting the role that immigrants play as a consistent reinvigoration of America. So, by law, legal authority and by precedent, legal authority, the President has the right to do this. If it was okay when President Reagan did it and President George Herbert Walker Bush did it, why isn't it okay when President Obama takes these same administration acts and, as I said, affecting a smaller percentage of people than President Reagan did? So here we go. It is long past time for us to have comprehensive immigration reform that honors our heritage and our history. Immigration has always been the reinvigoration of America. Each wave of immigrants brings their hopes, their aspirations, their faith, their work ethic, and their determination to succeed to our shores. Let us not tear families apart and deport young DREAMers and their parents. Let us oppose this radical, narrow-minded, anti-immigrant resolution. This St. Patrick's Day, let us recognize the immense contributions that immigrants of all cultures and all creeds have made to the past, to the present, and to the greatness of America. Happy St. Patrick's Day.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Hadley Roff, a proud San Franciscan, beloved friend, and deeply respected and beloved public servant, who passed away last month at the age of 85. Hadley was the hallmark of the era when reporters walked the beat in search of stories that touched the communities they served. Learning from and listening to citizens as a newspaper reporter informed Hadley's public service career in San Francisco City Hall and in the Congress. As a Santa Cruz native, Hadley remained committed to the Bay Area throughout his life. After graduating from Stanford University in 1954, Hadley became a journalist for the News, the Call Bulletin, and, later, the Examiner. For Hadley, exercising freedom of the press was his first foray into a lifetime of public service. In 1967, Hadley embarked on decades of service in San Francisco City Hall when he became Mayor Joe Alioto's press secretary. A few years later, in 1970, Hadley moved to the nation's capital where he served the people of California working for Senator John Tunney of California. In 1972, Hadley worked on the presidential campaign of Senator Ed Muskie of Maine. Hadley also served as press secretary to the liberal lion, the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Hadley never lost his passion for improving the lives of Bay Area residents. In 1979, he returned to San Francisco to serve as deputy mayor to then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein. After nearly a decade of service to Mayor Feinstein, Hadley remained a fixture at City Hall during the Administrations of San Francisco Mayors Art Agnos and Frank Jordan. A true public servant, Hadley strived to meet the needs of local residents under four very different San Francisco mayors, with four very different personalities, and governing styles. Mayors called upon Hadley to confront challenges and create solutions while treating everyone with respect and dignity. He served as president of the San Francisco Fire Commission and Director of the San Francisco Urban Institute. He may have been the most popular and widely loved public figure in San Francisco over the past fifty years. We were all thrilled when Hadley's dear friend, the late Susie Trommald, became his wife. Susie and Hadley shared a zest for life that inspired others to take notice. In their 30 years of marriage, they brought joy and pleasure to any gathering, and to their many friends. It was an honor for many of us to join Hadley in a celebration of Susie's life after her passing. I hope it is a comfort to Hadley's two sons, Jim and Tim, his devoted brother-in-law Elliott and his dearest friends that so many join them in mourning Hadley's passing and celebrating his life.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is with great personal sadness that I rise to pay tribute to a legendary, beloved San Francisco figure, Wilkes Bashford, who died on January 16. His world-renowned establishment--the eponymous `Wilkes Bashford'--delighted San Franciscans and visitors alike for half a century. Wilkes Bashford was long celebrated as the man who gave San Francisco its elegance. His life's greatest pleasure was educating generations of customers about style and about giving back to the community. Wilkes Bashford paired his fashion success with civic leadership, serving as Board President of the San Francisco War Memorial and Performing Arts Center, home to San Francisco's Symphony, Opera, Ballet and Veterans Building. He guided the renovation of the spectacular Veterans Building and co-chaired the committee to create the new, permanent memorial to our nation's veterans in the courtyard. His philanthropic works included support for Partners Ending Domestic Abuse, the Museum of the African Diaspora and Muttville Senior Dog Rescue. Wilkes had a special love for dachshunds and always had one as his faithful companion. Wilkes arrived in San Francisco in 1959 and opened his original store in 1966. `Wilkes Bashford' became the focus of the San Francisco fashion world. His exquisite taste, vast knowledge of the retail industry and foresight in predicting emerging fashion trends gave his store an international reputation. He introduced designer labels long before others and helped launch fashion careers. His legendary Friday lunches at Le Central restaurant spanned forty years. Here Wilkes dined and conversed about politics and local goings- on with good friends, Mayor Willie Brown, San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen, Matthew Kelly, Sandy Walker and Harry de Wildt. This long-time group of friends epitomized elegance, sophistication and charm. They enjoyed a special camaraderie and shared not only a love of the good life but a great passion for their city of San Francisco. Mayor Willie Brown called Wilkes Bashford part of the heart of the city. As we mourn Wilkes' passing, we remember his committed civic leadership, his career as a luxury clothier, and his life as a very well respected and gentle man. May it bring comfort to all who loved Wilkes that so many cherish his memory as a warm, loving, kind friend and employer--a quintessential gentleman.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his ongoing championing of the pledge we take every day: liberty and justice for all. Mr. Chairman, last year marked the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta. Eight hundred years ago, this storied charter first laid out a basic right to justice as the foundation of a fair society. It was interesting to see in the observance of the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta that they brought out 12 chairs to represent where the barons sat to make their case to King John. Those 12 chairs represent a trial by jury, 12 peers. Even under the King, the Magna Carta declared the lawful judgment by his peers. This much was owed the people. ``To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny, or delay right or justice.'' We pledge each day not justice for only the powerful and the wealthy, but liberty and justice for all. You can read what I said and much more about justice and the Magna Carta in the book ``1215: The Year of Magna Carta.'' It is pretty thrilling that 800 years ago, people knew that it was fundamental for the leverage to be with the people and that they had rights. The right to justice is part of the beating heart of America's democracy. It is the sword and shield against plutocracy and tyranny. Yet, today, with their class action bill, Republicans are trying to weaken that right, taking the justice that belongs to every American and handing it to the privileged few. It is about who has the leverage. Class actions are an indispensable tool for individuals to hold powerful interests and big corporations accountable for their misdeeds. Without the ability to band together, Americans who have endured grave injuries and egregious wrongs face a David and Goliath struggle for justice. Without class actions, the wealthy and powerful can divide and conquer their victims, burying families' pleas for fair remedy with the sheer weight of their money and resources. With this bill, Republicans are yet again helping the special interests flatten hardworking Americans. We see the same goal in play in the Republican provisions attacking asbestos victims that are folded into this bill. As was mentioned by our colleague, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, in her letter, Sue Vento, widow of our esteemed colleague, Bruce Vento, made a plea for them not to include this in this bill, but they did. These provisions claim to serve transparency. Indeed, the Republicans' effort to protect asbestos companies, intimidate asbestos victims, could not be clearer. They require absolutely no transparency on the part of the asbestos companies. Instead, they invade the privacy of thousands of Americans, many of them veterans and even children in schools. This isn't about somebody taking a job that has risks. This is about children going to school and being exposed to asbestos and their privacy being invaded. I am so pleased we will have a motion to recommit to address that later. It also makes them vulnerable to harm by disclosing personal information in the public domain. Over and over again, this Republican Congress works to stack the deck for the special interests against hardworking Americans. We see it in campaign finance, where Republicans will drown the voices of the American people in a tidal wave of unlimited special interest spending in our elections and completely resisting any opportunity to disclose. If you like transparency, you should love disclosure of where this money is coming from. We see it in the assault on labor, where Republicans would dismantle collective bargaining and undermine workers seeking a bigger paycheck, which they have long deserved. We see it in this bill on class actions, where Republicans would deny justice to millions of Americans. In the courts, in the workplace, in our environment, in our elections, the Republican Congress has strengthened powerful interests and weakened hardworking Americans. Our Founders pledged their lives, their liberty, their sacred honor, to establish a government of the many, not a government of the money. This is the people's House. Let us stand with the American people in opposing this appalling Republican bill. With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on December 25th, a beautiful Christmas day in San Francisco, a beloved community leader and esteemed childcare advocate passed away. Patricia `Patty' Siegel was a courageous, passionate and relentless champion for children, who dedicated her life and career to making childcare accessible and affordable for all families. Patty helped lay the groundwork for America's contemporary childcare network. In 1972, drawing on her experience as a mother, teacher and parent- organizer, Patty founded one of the nation's first childcare resource and referral agencies, the Childcare Switchboard, now known as the Children's Council of San Francisco. For 30 years, Patty served as Executive Director of the California Child Care Resource & Referral Network, the first such network in the nation, which empowered her to play an influential role in shaping state and federal childcare policy. Among her biggest achievements was the passage of federal legislation in 1990 creating the Child Care and Development Block Grant, which provides subsidies to low-income families seeking childcare. Patty served on the Governor's Advisory Committee on Child Care Development and was one of the original state commissioners for the First 5 California Commission that oversees and supports the funding of education, health, and childcare programs for California children under age 5 and their families. With her customary energy and vision, Patty also inspired and guided the development of Parent Voices, a grassroots parent-led effort to engage and empower parents to participate in the policy process. An early champion of the idea that early education creates long-term cognitive and emotional benefits, Patty Siegel's name is synonymous with the best initiatives giving all children the opportunity to succeed. As we mourn Patty's passing, we know she lives on--in the children she helped, in the working families she empowered, and in the activists she inspired. Sadly, in 2014, Patty lost her beloved husband, Sandy, who proudly supported her efforts over the years. I hope it is a comfort to their children Toby, Tara and Kelsey, and their four grandchildren, that so many are thinking of them during this difficult time. We are grateful to them for sharing such a magnificent and dearly beloved woman with us. Her beautiful spirit lives on in the battles she won, the policies she changed, and the countless lives she continues to impact.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute to a great community leader and dear friend, Harrison Lim, on the occasion of his 80th birthday and 50th wedding anniversary. I join his family and friends, City officials, Chinese family associations and service organizations to honor and thank him for 45 years of extraordinary leadership, vision, and enormous generosity to the Chinese American community of the San Francisco Bay Area. Through the numerous organizations he has founded and guided, he has represented and served the political, economic and charitable needs of Chinese Americans living in the Bay Area. Today's Chinese American community is bright, vibrant, hopeful and prosperous, thanks to champions such as Harrison Lim. Harrison Lim immigrated to the United States in 1970, and since that time has devoted himself to helping newcomer families transition to their new homeland and pursue the American Dream. Harrison founded two essential nonprofit social service agencies in California, one in San Francisco and one in San Jose, to help new immigrants adjust to a new culture and achieve success. The first agency, Charity Cultural Services Center, was established in 1983 in San Francisco to help Chinese immigrants learn English and gain skills to become independent and thrive in their new community. It has provided immigration and naturalization services, cooking and carpentry job training and placement, tutoring programs with San Francisco high schools and much more. Before retiring in 1998, Harrison purchased a building in the heart of Chinatown as a permanent home for this nonprofit agency. The second nonprofit agency, Cross-Cultural Community Services Center, was established in 1991 in San Jose. Staff worked with the City of San Jose and 14 elementary schools to provide tutoring and afterschool activities for African American, Southeast Asian, Hispanic and Chinese American students to help them achieve academic success. Mr. Lim has won numerous awards during his career, including: Unsung Hero Award by KQED Channel 9 and the Examiner Newspaper--1995; Community Hero Award by the San Francisco Foundation--2001; Community Hero Award by the World Journal--2004; Most distinguished alumni for Chinese University of Hong Kong's 50th Anniversary--2013; Outstanding Volunteer Award from President Barack Obama--2015. Harrison remains active on the board of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association. For the past 30 years, he has helped the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association and the United Way fundraise for 12 agencies in Chinatown, such as the YMCA, YWCA, Chinese Hospital and Self Help for the Elderly. He has also been recognized for his leadership in establishing the Chinatown Campus of San Francisco City College. I have been honored by our longstanding friendship and wish to thank his wife, Margaret, his daughters, Artina and Rosana, and his sons, Jackson and Samson, for sharing their extraordinary husband and father with us.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, that only adds to the urgency of our acting by March 31, 2016, as the Speaker indicated. He also indicated that hearings on this important legislation would begin on our first day back.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise for a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is facing a dire economic crisis, and our fellow Americans who live there need our help. Just now, I introduced the Puerto Rico Emergency Financial Stability Act, a bill that provides Puerto Rico some critical, temporary breathing room from creditor lawsuits until Congress acts. Puerto Rico urgently needs this respite while Congress considers restructuring legislation--legislation to provide the 3.5 million U.S. citizens that call Puerto Rico home the tools they need to comprehensively address the territory's unsustainable debt burden. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is: Is it in order for this bill to be considered and voted on by this House right now by unanimous consent?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on bigger paychecks for America's working families and in so many areas. Thank you, Mr. Levin, for your leadership. I congratulate Chairman Brady for assuming his new position. We all wish him success and look forward to working with him. The bill before us today calls for very serious discussion. We in this body have a very big responsibility to make decisions as architects of our children's future, where we are making decisions that strengthen the middle class and that take us to our responsibility to be custodians of our democracy. The middle class is the backbone of our democracy, and this legislation undermines the success of the middle class. In terms of children, their education, the financial security of their families, the pension security of their grandparents, the health of the environment in which they live, all of that is seriously affected by this legislation. Let's put it in perspective, because this is part of a grand scheme that started after President Clinton left office. In his term of office, because of the Budget Act of 1993 which passed with Democratic support, it unleashed a remarkable era of job creation, and it took us on a path to deficit reduction. In fact, five of his last budgets were even or in surplus, and that was taking us to a path of reducing not only the deficit--of course it would be eliminated--but the national debt. Along came tax cuts for the middle class, and in just a few years, all of the progress in reducing the deficit that occurred during the Clinton administration was reversed by the Bush tax cuts--unpaid for-- for the wealthiest. That unpaid for is really what my problem is here today. There are many provisions in this bill that we Democrats take ownership of and I personally take some personal pride in having worked on. For example, the earned income tax credit and the childcare tax credit, those initiatives we negotiated with President Bush to take them to the place that they are. They are a stimulus. They were debated and passed at the time as part of President Bush's stimulus package. When it comes to some of the initiatives like R&D, we have all been talking about modernizing and making permanent the research and development tax credit. The problem is, unpaid for. When we talk about 179, that is a creation of which Democrats were very much a part, which were the initiatives to help small businesses. We fully subscribe to that. But when we make them permanent--and that might be a good idea--and they are unpaid for, it also hurts our ability to do something broader in the Tax Code and take advantage of that opportunity. So low-income housing tax credits, again, I think I am second to none--except maybe Mr. Rangel--in this body in my advocacy for that, when Mr. Rostenkowski was the chairman of the committee. It is important that they are in this legislation, and they should be permanent. My problem with it all is why are these things--look, this is an engine to send jobs overseas with some of the provisions that are in the legislation, so it is like a Trojan horse. There are many good things, and then all of a sudden you find out what is in the belly of them. So the fact that they are permanent means that, for certain things like bonus depreciation and things like that, if they are for a short term, people will take advantage of them. We get the boost in our economy, and our Treasury from that. Here is what it comes down to: You go down this path of $600-plus billion of permanent, unpaid for tax extenders largely benefiting corporate America and say that doesn't have to be paid for. Oh, but, by the way, if you want to do $7 billion to honor the work of 9/11 first responders, you have to pay for every penny of it, find a way to do it by cuts or outlay or some other way. So what is the symmetry in all of this? Tax cuts for businesses to send jobs overseas, unpaid for and permanent; 9/11, which is an emergency, would you not agree? If there ever were an emergency, it would be 9/11. And the costs related to honoring our commitments, both in health and compensation to those workers, should be held up because we couldn't find pay-fors. Now we have, so that is good. We had to find the pay-fors. What I question very seriously is: What are the costs in the outyears? It is hard to determine, but they are there. What they are going to do is increase the deficit with such seriousness that our country will have to borrow from the Social Security trust fund to stay afloat, seriously undermining Social Security--and as our distinguished whip said, Social Security, Medicare, and the rest. It seriously affects this legislation, seriously affects our ability to make the discretionary investments in the education of our children, the promotion of growth, and the rest of that. So I think what it comes down to is, yes, there are some good ideas in here. We developed them. We support them. We don't even care if some of them are permanent. It is the unpaid for part of it that is mortgaging our children's future, that is threatening Social Security, and that undermines our ability to reduce the deficit and reduce the interest payments on the national debt. Again, we are walking away from what President Clinton did so successfully with a very difficult vote. We lost the Congress after that for that and other reasons. Some Members did. They said: I did the right thing because it took us on a path of fiscal soundness, and it took us on a path of economic growth. This, of course, was reversed in the Bush years. The $5.5 trillion of deficit reduction was--there was an $11 trillion reversal, one of the biggest, up until that time, of a reversal. My colleagues, I sympathize with some who say, well, I have always been for R&D tax credits, and others who say, well, it has to do with the tax stuff in my State and all that. I appreciate that, and I respect your judgment on it. There is a bigger picture here, and the bigger picture is our responsibility to the future. The chickens will come home to roost on this. We will have to pay. You know who is going to pay? Our children, their families, the Social Security system, and the rest. For that reason, I will not be supporting this, and I join our distinguished Whip Hoyer in urging our colleagues to vote against it as well. I know it sounds good. But, as I said, it is a Trojan horse, and we should not be fooled.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on behalf of America's working families. I thank the chairman of the committee for his courtesy in enabling me to speak at this time. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a responsibility to stand with American manufacturing and to help create good-paying jobs for the hardworking families who are the backbone of our country. The middle class is the backbone of our democracy. In order to have fair trade, we must have robust tools to enforce the obligations of our trading partners. This legislation began as a strong, bipartisan trade enforcement bill. It has degenerated into a vehicle for all of the toxic, special interest promises that have been made to secure passage of the TPA. They have poisoned a strong trade enforcement bill with their denial of the climate crisis, with their turning a blind eye on human trafficking, and with their refusal to address the foreign currency manipulation that destroys millions of American jobs. In terms of the climate crisis, congressional Republicans refuse to acknowledge the truth of the climate crisis. Pope Francis, on his visit here and even before he came and since, has made this climate crisis a priority. It was the subject of his encyclical. He has said that he is praying for the success of the historic Paris Climate Summit. Faith leaders from the evangelical community and across the board are urging us to answer our moral responsibility to preserve God's creation. It is our responsibility. As God's creation, we have a responsibility to be good stewards of it and to do so in a way that does not hurt the poor and their presentations. Just look at what is happening in Paris as opposed to what is happening here. In Paris, 195 nations have convened to address the climate crisis that threatens the health of our communities and the future that we leave our children. It is about air pollution. 186 nations have submitted plans to address the climate crisis and the air pollution. 146 world leaders personally attended the conference. Yet, with this Customs bill, Republicans would bar our trade negotiators from even discussing climate in the context of a trade agreement. You cannot separate climate and commerce. We cannot accept Republicans' willful blindness to this connection and to the reality of the climate crisis. Our trade negotiations must honor our values as a Nation. America must stand as a bulwark against the atrocity of human trafficking wherever it is found. In the week that we mark the 150th anniversary of the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery in the United States or anyplace subject to our jurisdiction, this legislation allows countries with documented forced labor practices and brutal human trafficking to enjoy the benefits of free trade and full access to our markets. In the Trade Promotion Authority legislation, we prohibited fast- track procedures for trade agreements with countries ranked tier 3 in the State Department's Trafficking in Persons Report, which are nations with the worst human rights records. That is in the TPA. Yet, in this bill, we weaken that standard, say, for example, for Malaysia and for other nations failing to address human trafficking. In terms of currency, Republicans continue to allow foreign currency manipulation to devastate the competitiveness of goods made in America, stealing jobs from American workers. The American Policy Institute estimates that foreign currency manipulation has already cost millions of American jobs and threatens hundreds of thousands more in the coming years. We need strong, enforceable currency standards in our Customs laws. Yet, Republicans have stripped out this tough, bipartisan provision, cracking down on currency manipulation in the Senate bill. It is time to crack down on countries who have manipulated their currencies for years to protect their industries and undercut American jobs. In any trade legislation, our top responsibility must be to strengthen the paychecks of America's workers. Since I have lost my voice, let us reject this deeply flawed bill.

Ms. PELOSI

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the following resolution.

Ms. PELOSI. I do, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is shocking to the American people that Congress refuses to keep guns out of the hands of those on the FBI's terrorist watch list. The gun violence epidemic is a public health crisis that we have a responsibility to address. Failing to meet that responsibility brings dishonor to the House of Representatives. Public sentiment demands action. Eighty percent of Americans support legislation to close the outrageous loophole that puts guns in the hands of people, again, on the FBI's terrorist watch list. In the last decade, 90 percent of those on the FBI's terrorist watch list who tried to buy guns in America left the store with their weapons of choice. In closing, in the people's House, we do nothing. We have not even allowed an up-or-down vote. In just over 1,000 days since Sandy Hook, we have seen 1,000 mass killings, 90,000 gun deaths, and 210,000 gun injuries in communities across America. By refusing to act, we disgrace the House, we dishonor the American people, and we erode America's faith in our democracy. We have no right to hold moments of silence without action to end gun violence. Give us an up-or-down vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his extraordinary leadership as the new ranking member on the Education and the Workforce Committee, bringing with him all of his commitment to education in our country as well as his knowledge of the connection of young people to our justice system and how to provide opportunities for them in the safest possible way. I thank Mr. Scott for his great leadership. We are all very, very proud of you. I know your predecessor in this role, Mr. George Miller, would be as well. I thank you, Chairman Kline, for your leadership as well and for enabling this bipartisan legislation to come to the floor. I salute the chairman and ranking member in the Senate as well. Fifty years ago our Nation took a bold and historic step forward for educational opportunity, for the strength of our economy, and for the health of our democracy, which is based on an informed electorate, enacting the ESEA. Today the Elementary and Secondary Education Act stands as one of the landmark victories in both the struggle for civil rights and the War on Poverty. At the bill signing in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson, himself a former teacher, explained: ``No law I have signed or will ever sign means more to the future of America.'' President Johnson added: ``Education is the only valid passport from poverty.'' In addition to what it returns to the individual and enables that person to reach his or her aspirations, education brings much to our economy. In fact, nothing brings more to the Treasury of our country than investments in education, from early childhood education, K-12, which we are addressing today, higher education, postsecondary education, lifetime learning. Indeed, the ESEA's commitment to expanding education access, especially to our most vulnerable students, has proven essential to bridging the gap between poverty and possibility for generations of Americans. Yet, for the first time in our Nation's history, more than half of the students attending public school live in poverty. To close the opportunity gap, we must close the education gap that limits the future of so many children and communities. Today we are thankful to be passing a bipartisan agreement that will strengthen the education of all of our children. It helps States to improve low-performing schools and empowers teachers and administrators with better training and support. It targets funding to the most at-risk and needy students, with enhanced title I investments. It provides vital resources for English language learners and homeless youth. It amplifies the voices of educators and parents, what we have always wanted, schools, a place where children can learn, teachers can teach, and parents can participate. It replaces high-stakes testing with State and local district flexibility. We are bolstering our commitment to strong STEM, arts, and early education for children in every ZIP code. In our area and other parts of the country, we call STEM STEAM, Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics, all of that reinforced in this legislation. With these improvements in the ESEA authorization before us, it is no wonder that this agreement is supported by a far-ranging coalition, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the National Governors Association, the Leadership Conference of Civil and Human Rights, AFT and NEA, two leading teachers unions, the National Center for Learning Disabilities, and many more. We all agree that education is a national security issue. President Eisenhower taught us that. It is also an economic issue. It is one of the most pressing civil rights issues of our time. With this legislation, we help ensure that access to high-quality education is the right of every student. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this strong bipartisan reauthorization of the historic ESEA, the Every Student Succeeds Act. Once again I thank the distinguished chairman, Mr. Kline, and our ranking member, of whom we are very, very, proud as well, Mr. Scott.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to mark World AIDS Day. I do so in great pride, following my colleague from Ohio, Congresswoman Joyce Beatty, who spoke on the floor about the 60th anniversary of what happened in Montgomery when Rosa Parks, with great courage, refused to give up her seat on the bus. The courage of that woman and all of those who supported her has made such an incredible difference in our country, and it is indeed related to what I want to say about HIV and AIDS. Many of us had the privilege of knowing Rosa Parks when she worked for John Conyers. We honored her here in the House and are so proud that we have a statue of Rosa Parks in the Capitol of the United States. We think of her and we think of the courage she had, which led to the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. And that Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act led to our having a much more diverse Congress of the United States. From there came our Congressional Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, and the Asian Pacific Caucus. The Black Caucus directly related to Mr. Conyers, who was a founding member, and Rosa Parks, who was an inspiration. They were responsible for so much change in the leadership of our Congress. And because so many issues spring from the Congressional Black Caucus, some say ``the conscience of the Congress.'' So the relationship from Rosa Parks, through the caucus, to now we are observing the 25th anniversary of World AIDS Day, the link is Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who has been such a champion in the Congress on this subject. We take great pride in the accomplishments she has had in her capacity as a Member of Congress but also as our representative to the United Nations General Assembly. Each year, World AIDS Day is observed internationally to reflect the progress that has been made in reaffirming our determination to banish AIDS to the annals of history. We recognize that achieving an AIDS-free generation requires our relentless, energetic, and undaunted commitment to testing, treatment, and finding a cure. The World AIDS Day theme this year, ``The time to act is now,'' challenges us to act with the urgency that this global epidemic demands. AIDS, as we know, and the HIV virus is a ferocious and resourceful disease, a resourceful virus, ever-mutating to escape our efforts to destroy it. Therefore, we have to be ferocious, resourceful, and adaptable in our effort to succeed to end HIV. We must bring bold thinking and deep commitment to testing, treatment, and the search for a cure and a vaccine to prevent. President Bush, with his PEPFAR initiative, took a big advance in how we can help prevent the spread of AIDS in the rest of the world. He and Mrs. Bush, with their Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon Initiative to link cervical cancer prevention with HIV testing and treatment in Africa, was a remarkable initiative. So we salute the bipartisanship. We supported, of course, President Bush with PEPFAR. We wanted it bigger, and he wanted it strong, and there we were with something that has saved millions of lives and given hope to people. I visited some of the clinics in Africa where PEPFAR is being administered, and some of the people I met there said, ``I would never have come in to be tested before because there was no reason. I had no hope that there would be any remedy or any maintaining of a quality of life that would have encouraged me to risk the stigma of saying that I was HIV-infected.'' So, again, it is all about the people. In New York today, Bono will be observing the 10th anniversary of the ONE and (RED) initiatives that have set out to alleviate poverty and eradicate disease, with a heavy focus on HIV/AIDS. We know the work of the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation and what they have done on this issue, particularly in India. I, today, also wish I could be in San Francisco, where amfAR will be saluting the work at University of California-San Francisco on HIV/AIDS by establishing a new initiative there. I am just mentioning a few other observances of World AIDS Day. It is happening throughout the world. If you go back a number of years, when I came to Congress, we were going to two funerals a day. It was the saddest thing. Now we are going to weddings and helping people make out their wills and all the rest because they have a longer life ahead. The maintenance of life, the quality of life is really important, but we do want a cure. So I said it was the 25th anniversary of World AIDS Day; I meant to say the 25th anniversary of the Ryan White CARE Act. That young man, whose name is something that is iconic to all of us, left us, but his mother carries on the tradition, and it has made such a tremendous difference. My colleague Henry Waxman, who is no longer in the Congress but is still a champion on HIV/AIDS, was so instrumental in leading us to passing that legislation. So it has been bipartisan. It is global. It is personal. It is urgent that we continue so that, one day, 50 years from now, people will say, ``What was AIDS? What was that?'', and the books will show that it was a terrible, terrible tragedy that befell the world's population regardless of status, of wealth, of gender or of race, and something that is now buried in the news somewhere as a terrible memory but not a part of our future. Again, as we observe World AIDS Day, may we all wear our red ribbons in sympathy with those who have lost their lives, sadly, before the science took us to a better place on this. That is what we are counting on, research and science to take us to a better place on this, and also the enthusiasm, determination, and relentlessness of so many people throughout the world to make HIV/AIDS a horrible, horrible memory, again, but not part of our future.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his great service to our country in promoting our values and strengthening our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor in a very prayerful way today because we were all horrified at what happened in Paris, at what happened in Beirut, at what happened to the Russian airliner, to name a few recent incidences. We recognize that that is horrible and that we have to protect the American people from it. To do so, we must be strong, but our strength must also spring from our prayerfulness for those who lost their lives or for those whose security was threatened physically, emotionally, and in every other way. In our country, we have a relationship with France. They were our earliest friends. That is why in this Chamber of the House of Representatives, any visitor can see there are only two paintings. One is of our great patriarch, George Washington, our hero, our Founding Father. The other painting in this Chamber is of the Marquis de Lafayette. It is in recognition of the friendship that the French Government extended to the Colonies in our war for independence. Just imagine George Washington and Lafayette, a long, long friendship. So, while we are concerned about violence wherever it exists in the world, when Paris was hit in such a vicious way, in some ways, it hit home for us, not that the other lives were not equally as important. As we come to the floor to talk about what we do next, we take an oath of office--every one of us--to protect and to support the American people and the Constitution of the United States. Keeping the American people safe is our first responsibility. It is the oath we take. If the American people aren't safe, what else really matters? We understand the concern, the fear, in the country when an act of terrorism strikes. In fact, that is the goal of terrorists: to instill fear, to instill terror. We cannot let them succeed; so, we have to take the measures necessary to protect the American people and to be very strong in how we do it. That is why I have a problem with the bill that is on the floor today. It is because I think we have a much stronger, better option to protect the American people, and that is in the form of the Thompson- Lofgren legislation. Unlike in the Republican bill, the Democratic alternative applies tough scrutiny to all potential refugees, not just to Syrians and Iraqis, as the Republican bill is limited to. The Thompson-Lofgren Secure Refugee Process Act would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to verify the identities of all refugee applicants. Any application that contains insufficient, conflicting, or unreliable information would be denied from day one. The bill also requires that at least five Federal agencies--the Department of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence--check all refugee applications against their records. Any application that indicates a national security or a criminal threat would be denied--all. Not Iraq- Syria--all. Two former Secretaries of Homeland Security--Secretary Janet Napolitano and Secretary Michael Chertoff--have written about the process that is in existence now and which the Thompson-Lofgren legislation respects. The process that is currently in place is thorough and robust, and so long as it is fully implemented and not diluted, it will allow us to safely admit the most vulnerable refugees while protecting the American people. Fortunately, they say, these goals are not mutually exclusive. There are other things that we could be doing in a bipartisan way, and I would have hoped that that would have been a place we could have gone with this. One of them relates to closing loopholes in the Visa Waiver Program. Today our colleagues on the Senate side are putting forth their principles, which state: ``If an ISIS recruit attempts to travel to the United States on a fraudulent paper passport issued by a country that participates in the Visa Waiver Program, that individual would avoid biometric screening and an in-person interview.'' How could we allow this loophole to exist if we are truly addressing this challenge in a comprehensive way? If the Republicans want to make the Nation safer in the face of terror, there is another clear area in which we should act, and that is we should be voting on Republican Congressman Peter King's bill in order to close the appalling loophole. It is outrageous that a person who is on the terrorism watch list-- listen to this. If someone is on the terrorist watch list, he could walk into a gun store and buy a gun. His bill is called the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act. The visa waiver. Close the terrorist gun loophole. According to the GAO, over the last 11 years, more than 2,000 suspects on the FBI's terrorist watch list bought weapons in the United States. Did you know that? Ninety-one percent of all suspected terrorists who tried to buy guns in the United States walked away with the weapons they wanted over the time period with just 190 rejected despite their having ominous histories. Listen, 5 to 1, 10 to 1, they were able to get these guns. Why can't we talk about guns when we talk about danger to the American people? It is outrageous that we would be slamming the door to mothers and children while we still allow people on the terrorist watch list to walk in the door of a gun store and buy a gun. With regard to those mothers and children, I join with labor, civil, human rights, and faith groups from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, from the Episcopalians, the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the evangelicals, and Jewish groups. I join them in saying that the Republican bill before the House today fails to meet our values and fails to strengthen the security of the American people. Families in Syria and Iraq are desperately trying to escape ISIS' gruesome campaign of torture, rape, violence, and terror of the Assad regime. The Republican bill before the House today severely handicaps the refugee settlement in the future in our country. It slams that door again on desperate mothers and children who are fleeing ISIS' unspeakable violence. As Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals, said: ``Of course we want to keep terrorists out of our country, but let's not punish the victims of ISIS for the sins of ISIS.'' Did you know this? Here are the facts. Since 2001--just in the last few years--only about 2,200 Syrians have been admitted to the United States. Half are children, and 25 percent are seniors. All faced an 18- to 24-month-long screening process. As the Refugee Council and its coalition of more than 80 faith, humanitarian, and human rights groups point out in their letter to Congress: ``Because so few refugees in the world are resettled, the United States often chooses the most vulnerable, including refugees who cannot remain safely where they are and families with children who cannot receive the medical care they need to survive.'' Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Refugee Council's letter with all of the cosigners. Refugee Council USA, Washington, DC, November 18, 2015. Dear Representative: On behalf of Refugee Council USA (RCUSA), a coalition of 20 non-governmental organizations committed to refugee protection and welcome, I write to you today to urge you to protect Syrian and Iraqi refugees and the integrity of the United States refugee resettlement program by voting NO on H.R. 4038--The American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act 2015. Since 1975, the United States has resettled more than 3 million refugees from around the world, including 169,000 from Bosnia and more than 100,000 from Iraq. Three quarters of a million of those refugees entered the U.S. since 2001. During that time, there have been no recorded terrorist acts in the United States by a refugee. That should come as little surprise. Refugees are, by definition, people fleeing from persecution--not persecutors themselves. H.R. 4038 creates a bureaucratic review process that could take years to implement and would effectively shut down refugee resettlement. The bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to ``certify'' whether an individual refugee is a threat or not after ``concurrence'' with the Directors of the FBI and DNI. The bill does not provide guidance on what the process for certification will be. This process will have to be created and agreed upon by three heads of agencies. Establishing such a process could take years, and in the meantime, refugees who could be resettled would languish in camps and dangerous situations, Syrian Americans would not be able to reunite with their family members, and there would be very real ramifications for international refugee protection and U.S. foreign policy interests in the region. The process, once established, would add months or years to the security screening process, which is already the lengthiest and most robust in the world, routinely taking between 18 and 36 months. Obtaining the concurrence of three heads of federal agencies for EACH REFUGEE would take years and effectively put an end to the refugee resettlement program. For reasons of security and safety, security and medical clearances are only valid for limited periods of time. During the certification process, these clearances will expire. This will mean that refugees will be caught in an un- ending loop of security clearances that will never end. The bill requires reporting to thirteen congressional committees on each refugee that is considered for resettlement. This is unreasonably burdensome and will further delay the admission of refugees, cause security clearances to expire, and effectively end the program. Refugees are already the most vetted non-citizens in our country. All refugees undergo thorough and rigorous security screenings prior to arriving in the United States, including but not limited to multiple biographic and identity investigations; FBI biometric checks of applicants' fingerprints and photographs; in-depth, in-person interviews by well-trained Department of Homeland Security officers; medical screenings; investigations by the National Counterterrorism Center; and other checks by U.S. domestic and international intelligence agencies. Supervisory review of all decisions; random case assignment; inter-agency national security teams; trained document experts; forensic testing of documents; and interpreter monitoring are in place to maintain the security of the refugee resettlement program. Due to technological advances, Syrian refugees are also undergoing iris scans to confirm their identity through the process. The bill is a waste of resources. Funds used to establish and run this certification process would be better used in conducting actual security reviews of refugees and others who are vetted by these agencies. The bill is a pretext and requires differential treatment of refugees from Syria and Iraq without providing a justification for the additional verification. It is a disguised attempt to stop refugees from two countries long beset by internal conflict, including refugees who have been in neither Syria nor Iraq for four years. Differential treatment, with no clear justification, amounts to discrimination on the basis of nationality without rational basis. No terrorist attacks in the US have been committed by refugees. The few non-citizens who have caused harm have come to the US as tourists or through other means. This bill will tell the world that the US has no interest in being part of the global solution to protect the victims of the violence in Syria and Iraq. It will keep US citizen family members of these refugees from reuniting with their loved ones who are in danger. This bill does nothing to keep the country safe, is a waste of tax dollars, and is an attack on refugees and immigrants--both those who are seeking safety and those who are already here. For these reasons we ask that you vote ``no'' on H.R. 4038. We also want to draw your attention to the attached letter signed yesterday by 81 national organizations in support of Syrian refugees. We appreciate your support in protecting the refugees. Sincerely, Melanie Nezer, Chair, Refugee Council USA.