Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, now that the House has voted to refer my privileged resolution to committee, can the Chair inform Members of the status of the Thompson of Mississippi resolution referred to the House Administration Committee, the same committee that we are referring today. That resolution was on the floor 2 weeks ago and referred to committee 2 weeks ago. Can the Chair inform us of the status of it, especially in light of the action taken by the South Carolina Legislature and the Governor of South Carolina to take down the Confederate battle flag?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him for being a champion on human rights throughout the world. I am pleased to associate myself with the remarks of Chairman Smith, and I thank him for his courageous, long-term dedication to human rights throughout the world and the recognition that what is happening in Tibet is a challenge to the conscience of our country and to the world. I thank him for enumerating some of the concerns that we have, and I know that our distinguished ranking member will talk about some of what is contained in the resolution. I thank them both for their leadership. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and in celebration of the 80th birthday of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, whose spiritual wisdom and friendship have been inspiring and uplifting to many Tibetans, Americans, and people throughout the world. His Holiness the Dalai Lama is a transcendent presence on the international stage. As a compassionate religious leader, astute diplomat, and an undaunted believer in the power of nonviolence, the Dalai Lama has earned the respect of people from many nations, many backgrounds, and many faith traditions. American Presidents and the American people have been inspired by His Holiness, who describes himself as a simple monk, ``no more, no less.'' Those American Presidents began with Franklin Roosevelt, who sent His Holiness the Dalai Lama a watch with the phases of the Moon on it for his birthday when he was a little boy. How prescient it was of President Roosevelt because His Holiness would not only be a religious figure, but one who related so positively to science and its mysteries. To Tibetan Buddhists, His Holiness is the earthly manifestation of the living Buddha. To them and the international community, he is the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. To millions of believers and admirers, he is a source of wisdom and compassion. To young people, His Holiness is a positive example of how to make the world a better place. As our colleague mentioned, the Chinese Government has refused to meet with him. They are afraid to meet with him; they consider him a threat, and that is so unnecessary. They accuse him of being for independence when he has said for decades now that he is for autonomy for Tibet. The Chinese Government has brutally repressed Tibet's unique religious, cultural, and linguistic heritage. The Chinese Government's oppression of the Tibetan people and the Chinese Communist Party's vitriolic campaign against the Dalai Lama continues, which, again, challenges us all to speak out. Again, the situation in Tibet is a challenge to the conscience of the world. If freedom-loving people do not speak out against oppression in Tibet, then we have lost all moral authority to speak out on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world. If it is a big country with whom we have big commercial interests, like China, it deters us from using our voices in support of human rights. How then can we turn to smaller, less economically significant countries and say, ``But for you, the standard is different''? The Congress must continue to stand with the Tibetan people and stand with His Holiness the Dalai Lama to ensure that Tibetan children are free to learn their language, practice their faith, and honor their culture as they live in peace. Perhaps one of the most remarkable achievements of His Holiness is his profound and unbreakable connection with the people of Tibet. He has won the Nobel Peace Prize, as was indicated; and we honored him with a Congressional Gold Medal in 2007. At that time, it was an honor for all of us that President George W. Bush and Mrs. Bush attended that gold medal ceremony. An 80th birthday is a significant milestone in any culture, none more so than in Tibet. This is a moment to celebrate; yet on his birthday, July 6, Tibetans were still not even allowed to utter the Dalai Lama's name. In the Dalai Lama's homeland, more than 140 Tibetans have self- immolated to protest oppression by the Chinese Government and the Chinese Communist Party's vitriolic campaign against the exiled Tibetan religious; yet the people of Tibet persevere. They persevere in peace. The nonviolent nature of the Tibetan struggle should serve as an inspiration to a world riven by conflict and devastating acts of violence. During his long life, the Dalai Lama has shown that harmony between peoples is based on freedom of expression, the freedom and courage to speak the truth and treat others with mutual respect and dignity. I just recall one incident when I was visiting His Holiness in India at Dharamsala. He had lamas come from all over to visit with our bipartisan congressional delegation who were visiting him there. After people got up and talked about all the oppression and the campaign against the Tibetans that was happening at that time, I got up to speak following that, and I said that we, in Congress, must act; we must act in terms of legislation to support the people of Tibet. I said so in a very forceful way because it was so sad to hear the stories of what was happening in Tibet, and I was so strong in my reaction to it. His Holiness followed me in the program, and he said: ``I pray that we can rid Nancy of her negative attitudes.'' Anyway, there is no better way to honor the Dalai Lama on his 80th birthday than by standing with him and the Tibetan people, vowing to keep their cause alive. As we wish His Holiness a peaceful and joyous birthday, we must rededicate ourselves to the cause of peace in the world and peace in our lives.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join in celebrating the 70th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Charter and the establishment of one of the world's greatest organizations for peace and the advancement of humanity. As the representative from San Francisco, this anniversary holds a particular pride for the people of my city and for me--for it was San Francisco that played host to the grand conference of delegates that wrote the U.N. Charter; and it was in the San Francisco War Memorial and Performing Arts Center, on June 26, 1945, that the Charter was signed. On that day, President Harry S Truman came to the Plenary to offer his congratulations and his hopes for the future of the new United Nations: ``You have created a great instrument for peace and security and human progress in the world,'' President Truman said. ``The world must now use it.'' Seven decades later, 193 member states have ratified the Charter. The world's greatest leaders and thinkers have been among the United Nations representatives. In 1946, United Nations General Assembly Delegate and Former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which builds on President Franklin D. Roosevelt's commitment to ``freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from want'' for all people. The United Nations has worked to end disease, hunger and poverty. It has sought to advance human rights, human dignity, and the opportunities of women and girls. It has focused the world's attention on the urgency of the climate crisis and the plight of refugees. It has stood against violence, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. It has been a great bulwark for global peace. The U.N. continues to confront the challenges of the 21st century by striving to not only meet the Millennium Development Goals but to expand them with the Sustainable Development Goals to be finalized this fall. It is my firm hope that the United States will be a strong and active participant in the effort to realize the Sustainable Development Goals to achieve progress for all the peoples of the United Nations. In striving to fulfill the ideals and promise of its charter, the United Nations, related agencies, programs and staff have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize eleven times. In 1950, Ralph Bunche, an American, became the first person affiliated with the new organization to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In his acceptance speech, he remarked, ``I am but one of many cogs in the United Nations, the greatest peace organization ever dedicated to the salvation of mankind's future on earth.'' This weekend, the city of San Francisco will once again welcome the U.N.'s highly respected Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, and other representatives of the United Nations. Our mayor Ed Lee and the people of San Francisco are thrilled and proud to once more play host to another milestone of U.N. history in our beautiful city. Under the vital leadership of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations remains a strong, resolute, unwavering voice for peace in a world burdened by war. May it continue to stand as a beacon of peace for the next 70 years and beyond.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend him for his tremendous, relentless, persistent leadership on behalf of America's workers. They have no better friend than you, Mr. Levin, and your pursuit of bigger paychecks for American workers and doing so without exploiting workers in other countries because, as we know, that only leads to stagnation of wages in America. You have understood that so clearly. You have taught us so well. It is an honor to serve with you, Mr. Levin. We come to this place with the Senate passage of TPA and the recognition that there will only be TPA signed. It no longer is connected to TAA. We have a choice today to choose between voting for TAA or not. If it was the intent of the Republicans in the Senate to attach TAA to AGOA in order to bring down both bills, they are very wrong because we reject that, even though we would have hoped for a better TAA. When we are talking about trade agreements that involve 40 percent of the world's economy, very large with a very small TAA bill, it is woefully small, but at least it is there. I would have fought for a bigger bill. We are not given that opportunity. As small as it is, tying it to AGOA and perhaps pulling down AGOA, well, we reject that. People said: Oh, let's just defeat the TAA bill, and AGOA will come up another way. We didn't trust that. We don't trust that the Republicans would allow AGOA to come up another way. For that reason, from strength, knowing that we could defeat TAA, but at the same time bring down AGOA, it was wisely decided that we should just end this phase now, especially since the idea that both bills or no bill no longer existed. This is the end of phase one, and to get to this point, there has been a massive mobilization in our country of people of faith; people who are concerned about environment; women's groups; and, of course, our friends in organized labor. There has been a massive mobilization for America's working families. We all stand ready to go to the next phase, and that next phase is to keep a very sharp, clear, bright light focused on the provisions of the TPP. Most people really didn't realize TPP and TPA, they are different things. Now, they will know. While I respect the values of the administration, giving their negotiators all of this power, it gives them no reason to come back with anything better than a great trade agreement for America's working families, and that is what we are here to fight for. We do not believe in trickle-down economics at home, and we do not believe in trickle-down trade policy where it helps people at the top, entities at the top, and then trickles down maybe to the workers. We can do this thinking in new, fresh, and entrepreneurial ways. What has bothered me about this debate is it is so stale; it is so old in terms of you are either for globalization and recognize it as a reality and you are for participating in it or you are not--how condescending. Of course, we know we live in a global economy. Globalization is something that goes well beyond trade. It is about outsourcing and offshoring and all kinds of other ways of taking jobs away from our workforce. It is something that is a possibility that can be done, and that was my aspiration, that we can do something great, something new, something that benefited all workers, lifted up all workers, not exploiting some in some country to the advantage of multinational corporations and stagnation for American workers' wages. Everybody says this is better than the status quo. Well, ``better'' is a comparative word. If the status quo is not good, better is less bad. We want something best. Good, better, best, never let it rest until good is better and better is best; that is what we were told in grade school. Better can also mean less bad. If this is the standard that we are going with, something that is less bad than the status quo, that is simply not good enough. The possibilities are so great for the world, for the planet, so we must recognize the relationship between trade policy and people's lives. We must recognize the relationship, the interconnection between commerce around climate. We cannot enable a trade agreement to go forward that degrades the environment, especially now that our awareness is so great about the impact of business decisions on the environment that our people live in, the air that our people breathe, and the rest. We must recognize that we can only accomplish this with greater transparency than this TPA enables us to have. That is done. We are arguing that. We are saying now, for TPP, the American people need, expect, and deserve for us to see what the course of this debate is about so that they can weigh in, so that, at the end of the day, the final product will be something that we can rally around or understand why certain decisions had to go a certain way, but not something that is just put there to say, up or down, you either understand we live in a global economy or you do not. That is, again, Mr. Speaker, condescending and not worthy, really, of the debate, and certainly not worthy of our responsibility to America's working families. So I am excited about the prospect as we go forward. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this legislation today. I wish we had a better TAA, and I certainly do not want to vote against the goal. I want to commend Karen Bass and Charlie Rangel who worked on this-- created it, really--from the start. It is really important, and we should be happy about passing that. This could have been on the President's desk before now if our colleagues in the Senate would have just voted for it and sent it there, except that they decided to hijack it by putting this TAA in there and changing this debate. But that is okay. It is what it is. We go forward again with a bright spotlight on TPP. If there is any value to what we have been through--which I think has been a great one in terms of mobilization and unifying people about the importance of the stability of America's financial stability and of America's working family--it is that we are ready with judgment and knowledge, again, engaged in the debate as we go forward. We won't be part of the debate because TPA prohibits that. But the American people will want to be engaged in that debate, and we, as their representatives, will have to vote on it at some point. President Lincoln said that public sentiment is everything. The more the public knows about what is happening, I think, the better the agreement will be. That is my hope, and that is what we will fight for. So this is another day, a new day to go forward. I congratulate my colleagues who have worked so hard to get us to where we are, but we have much more to do, much bigger possibilities for the American people, and much recognition that it is a whole new world in terms of our understanding of our interconnections. Technology aids us, information helps us, and communication can be our salvation as we share information. So again, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Levin for his leadership and so many people who worked so hard on all of this, and I look forward to possibly a time when we not only have a unified Democratic Caucus but a unified Congress to come together with one thing in mind as we approach the Fourth of July: remembering e pluribus unum--from many, one. We are one country. I don't think partisan politics, Democrats, Republicans, have anything to do with this debate. It is a debate about advancing America's workers and about bigger paychecks for America's workers as we lift up workers throughout the world, as we protect our environment, and as we go into the future.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life of one of the legends of the entertainment industry, a man responsible for some of the greatest television touchstones of the past three decades: Michael Gordon King. Michael's passing last month at age 67 is a great tragedy, but we know he leaves a towering legacy of success and an indelible mark on American culture. Michael and his late brother Robert inherited their business and their savvy from their father, Charles King, who founded a modest television syndication company named King World Productions in 1964. As Michael would recall, their father would go over every deal at the dinner table with his family, delving into the details of his transactions when Michael was as young as 14. Michael would take the title of president of King World shortly after graduating from Fairleigh Dickinson University, at the salary of $150 a week. When Charles King died in 1972, King World had one product: the distribution rights to ``The Little Rascals.'' Over the next 30 years, Michael and Robert would build King World into an entertainment empire. In 1983, King World paid $50,000 to acquire the rights to ``Wheel of Fortune.'' With the hard-charging brothers traveling the country to secure top media markets to air the show, ``Wheel of Fortune'' became the highest-rated syndicated program in history. The company was awarded the distribution rights to the revival of ``Jeopardy!''--the enduring television favorite that made Alex Trebek a national icon. In 1986, the Kings' launched a national talk show with a former Baltimore news anchor and local-Chicago talk show host: Oprah Winfrey. The Oprah Winfrey Show would become one of the most widely watched and consequential television programs ever. Under the leadership of Michael and Robert, King World reached astounding heights. According to the New York Times, ``On a typical day in the late 1980s, 90 million people watched at least one of the company's three biggest shows--Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy!, and The Oprah Winfrey Show.'' Eventually, the Kings sold their company to CBS. Michael would serve as a consultant to CBS, and find a new passion for sports--opening a world-class boxing gym and a boxing promotions company dubbed King Sports Worldwide. Michael measured himself against the biggest legends in entertainment history. As we reflect on his life and his legacy, we know that Michael King earned his place among the greats. Michael's passion for entertainment, his showmanship and eye for talent, his dedication, drive and creativity shaped some of the most important cultural touchstones of recent memory. I knew Michael as a father devoted to his family and concerned about the community. I hope it is a comfort to Michael's wife, Jena, his children, Alexandra, Theodore, Audrey and Jesse, and the entire King family that so many people mourn their loss. Many millions around the world have been entertained and moved by Michael's work, and are grateful for his legacy.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is with great personal sadness that I rise today to pay my final tribute to San Francisco's much beloved LeRoy King, who died on June 12 at the age of 91. A distinguished labor and civil rights African American leader, King's passion for justice and commitment to equality improved the lives of working men and women in San Francisco and throughout the country. From inviting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to speak in San Francisco in 1967 to his casting my electoral college vote in 2008 for President Barack Obama as the first African American President of the United States, LeRoy King was more than a witness to historic progress; he made history. During World War II, King served with courage and honor in the Army and dedicated his entire life to preserving and strengthening the great democracy he fought to protect. Even in his 80s, in the tradition of great American leaders, he was arrested for an act of civil disobedience on behalf of hotel and restaurant workers. King served as northern regional director of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, ILWU, for more than 30 years. It was important to him to overturn a discriminatory system that elected only Whites to union office, and he helped create a fully inclusive, integrated workforce. King organized with legendary labor leader Harry Bridges, was a staunch supporter of civil rights champion Cesar Chavez, was a supporter of Reverend Martin Luther King, and in 2009 he was honored with the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Award for promoting peace and advancing social and economic justice by embodying Dr. King's inclusive leadership and nonviolent participation. Mr. King, whether it was for ending discrimination and promoting affordable housing to community development to jazz, he has been honored. His accomplishments are memorialized in locations throughout San Francisco. My revised remarks, for the Record, will go more into that. It has been a great privilege for me to know such a deeply principled and exemplary human being and to call him friend. I will miss him. My family, my husband and my daughter Christine, my entire family will miss him terribly. I hope it is a comfort to his daughters, Rebecca King Morrow and Carolyn King Samoa; his son, LeRoy King Jr.; his grandchildren, and great grandchildren that so many San Franciscans, indeed beyond San Francisco, and other people loved and admired LeRoy King, and they share their tremendous loss. Mr. Speaker, it is with great personal sadness that I rise to pay final tribute to San Francisco's much beloved LeRoy King, who died on June 12th at the age of 91. A distinguished labor and civil rights leader, King's passion for justice and commitment to equality improved the lives of working women and men in San Francisco and throughout the country. From inviting Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. to speak in San Francisco in 1967 to his casting my electoral college vote in 2008 for Barack Obama as the first African American President of the United States, LeRoy King was more than a witness to historic progress, he made history. During World War II, King served with courage and honor in the Army-- and dedicated his entire life to preserving and strengthening the great democracy he fought to protect. Even in his 80s, in the tradition of great American leaders, he was arrested for an act of civil disobedience on behalf of hotel and restaurant workers. King served as Northern Regional Director of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) for more than 30 years. King became a member of ILWU Local 6 in 1946, one of the first African Americans to serve in the local leadership. In the 1950s he led a coalition of members to overturn a discriminatory system that elected only whites to union office and helped create a fully inclusive, integrated workforce. Mr. King sought to create a world where others could live free of discrimination, bigotry and injustice. King organized with legendary labor leader Harry Bridges and was a staunch supporter of civil rights champion Cesar Chavez. In 2009 the National Education Association honored King with the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Award for promoting peace and advancing social and economic justice by embodying King's inclusive leadership and nonviolent philosophy. Mr. King served on the San Francisco Redevelopment Commission for more than 30 years where he fought to preserve the African American and Japanese American heritage of the Fillmore District. His efforts helped lay a foundation for a more inclusive, more welcoming home for all San Franciscans. King was instrumental in the creation of the St. Francis Square Cooperative Housing development, which opened in 1963 in the Fillmore District and was a national model of racially integrated housing for working families. King and his family lived there from the time it opened until he died. King's accomplishments are memorialized in locations around San Francisco. The City's 108-year old carousel at Yerba Buena Gardens was renamed the LeRoy King Carousel, an homage to one of the many sites King helped shape while serving on the Redevelopment Commission. A bronze bust of King at the Jazz Heritage Center in San Francisco's Fillmore District honors his work preserving the neighborhood's African American and Japanese American heritage. It has been a great privilege for me to know such a deeply principled and exemplary human being and to call him my friend. I hope it is a comfort to his daughters Rebecca King Morrow and Carolyn King Samoa, his son LeRoy King Jr. and his grandchildren and great grandchildren, that so many San Franciscans who loved and admired LeRoy share their tremendous loss.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today, we have a very important decision to make in this Congress. I join with the Speaker in acknowledging the hard work that so many have put in on this important subject. I want to thank the President of the United States and his administration for being available with their Cabinet officers and the rest to explain to us how they see what is in the TPA--let me call it ``fast track'' so we separate this out--and what the prospects are now for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I want to thank our friends in labor, environmental groups, and faith-based groups who have expressed their opposition to so much of what has been presented, all of which will be constructive as we try to move forward with a better trade promotion act--fast track. Not so fast fast track. We all understand that we live in a global economy. Some of us, as I do, represent cities that are built on trade, the city of San Francisco, and I grew up in a city where the famous clipper ships brought product to and from our shores in Baltimore, Maryland. It is a great and exciting prospect to expand markets for our products and having U.S. global leadership. I was hopeful from the start of all of this discussion that we could find a path to ``yes'' for the fast-track legislation that was being put forth. There were some bumps in the road along the way and some potholes along the way--unfortunately, I think, sinkholes as well--but that doesn't mean that that road cannot be repaired. I just believe that it must be lengthened. Each week, each of us goes home to our districts, and in the case of many of us, we put our hands on a very hot stove. We hear the concerns of so many families who have financial instability and uncertainty. Some of it is still springing from 2008 when they were threatened with the loss of their homes, their jobs, and their pensions, when they were living on their savings, with the inability to send their kids to college--all of it undermining the American Dream. As the economy has improved under the leadership of President Obama, still, middle class economics have not fully turned around the country, because the consumer confidence that people must have in order to invest, to spend, to inject demand into the economy is simply not there. So my concern about all of this, it is about time. Why are we fast- tracking trade and slow-walking the highway bill? It is about time. Again, people have not recovered from 2008 sufficiently to have the consumer confidence to turn around our consumer economy. I think, today, we have an opportunity to slow down. We all know we want to engage in trade promotion and the rest of that, but we have to slow down. With whatever the deal is with other countries, we want a better deal for America's workers. Another element of time that I am concerned about is the time that is running out for us to rein in the consequences of climate change. I want to just talk about myself for a moment, and I am bragging. I hold myself second to none in this body on the subject of protecting the environment and recognizing the challenges of climate crisis. When I first came to the Congress, President George Herbert Walker Bush was President, and he signed my legislation, which is now called the Pelosi Amendment to the International Development and Finance Act of 1989. It said that any of our directors with any of our multilateral development banks had to have an environmental assessment made--and made known--to the indigenous people who were affected by whatever development was there and made known to the world. The connection between the environment and commerce is inseparable, and for over 25 years, the Pelosi Amendment has been in effect. When I became Speaker, my flagship issue was energy independence and climate, so I speak from some authority on this subject. The son of George Herbert Walker Bush, President George W. Bush, signed the energy bill of 2007. We worked together to find alternatives to fossil fuels. He wanted nuclear, and I wanted renewables. We had a very successful energy bill of 2007, done under the auspices of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that I established as Speaker, which has been abolished since then. Pope Francis, in another week, will be announcing his initiative on climate. While this is all going on--while schoolchildren know that this is a challenge that we must face to protect our planet, while people of faith join us and say, ``This is God's creation, and we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of it''--in this bill today, which is the customs bill that is on the floor right now, it prohibits the USTR from negotiating on climate change. How could it be? Twenty- five years ago, the Pelosi Amendment was passed because we saw melting snow in regions, and areas as big as the United Kingdom were burning in the Amazon. This is 25 years later, and we are putting in the bill that the USTR cannot negotiate on climate change. You cannot separate commerce and the environment. I salute the President. He has been magnificent and courageous in going out there and taking up the fight for America's leadership on climate change. He has been great. He has an agreement with China, which almost could not have been foreseen except for his leadership and the cooperation between our two countries. So it is not that he isn't doing his part. It is Congress. Again, it is about time, slowing down our responses when we should be proactive, yet fast-tracking legislation to do that. What is interesting is, we in the House, are we labeling ourselves the ``lower body'' and giving new meaning to that term when the Senate could have opportunity for amendment after amendment if their colleagues gave them the votes? In this House, we fast-track the fast track with no chance to amend any of it. Just vote it up or down. I find that unnecessary, unacceptable, and one place we could go to have a discussion on how to improve the fast-track legislation. At the same time, the Republican majority is allowing in the customs bill amendments to the fast-track bill, this amendment on climate, other amendments on immigration, and they were spelled out by Mr. Sessions earlier and with great pride--amendments to the fast track in the customs bill but no amendments for Democrats. Again, I don't see how this Congress can ignore that. I don't see how this trade agreement can ignore it. Much has been said about security issues that are involved in this agreement and that we have to make a geopolitical case for this trade agreement. Of course, we always have the safety of the American people as our first responsibility. Their security is what we come here to protect. Yet how could it be that we are allowing--again, let me say it another way because I am being very prayerful about this. Pope Paul VI said--I mentioned Francis earlier--if you want peace, work for justice, economic justice. I don't see this happening in this fast-track bill, or the lifting up of people in the rest of the world or having trade agreements that increase the paycheck of America's workers. That should be our first order of business--environmental justice, looking at these prohibitions on dealing with climate in 11 other countries in the world and then our own. I commend the President because, in the fast-track bill, there are some good provisions, issues, on the environment. I am talking about an ethic, a responsibility, a comprehensive view of the future. Again, the Pelosi Amendment addressed the indigenous people, all of these people, who will be not of the first, shall we say, priority for many of these countries as they make their economic decisions. On the subject of security, last year, 16 former three- and four-star generals and admirals who served on the CNA Corporation's Military Advisory Board released a report, and 16 former three- and four-star generals said that climate change is a catalyst for conflict. Climate change, they said, will have an impact on military readiness, strain base resilience both at home and abroad, and it may limit our ability to respond to future demands. We have rejected fast track before. After NAFTA, President Clinton sent a fast-track bill to the Congress, and it didn't even have enough votes to be taken up. The second time, it was rejected. When we had a majority in the House, we did not have fast track for President Bush. So, when people say this is the first time, it isn't so. Instead, under the leadership of Mr. Levin and Mr. Rangel, we had the May 10 agreement with the basic principles of how we should engage other countries. That is part of--and thank you, Mr. President--what the TPA has as its goals, but we were dealing bilaterally, one country at a time. This is a multilateral agreement with 11 other countries--12 countries and growing--and we need to slow this fast track down. I think it is possible. One of the questions that arises is the question of the trade adjustment assistance. Most of us have not only voted for this but have been champions of it over time. In speaking about myself again, it was one of the first issues I dealt with when I came to the Congress. It is really important, but as some of my colleagues have said, our people would rather have a job than trade adjustment assistance. I talked about that red-hot stove that people put their hands on when they go home. Mr. Cicilline talked about his district, Mr. Norcross about his, Mr. Boyle about his, and the list goes on and on. How do we say to these people, ``We are here for you; you are our top priority'' when the impression that they have is that this is not a good deal for them? But it can be. I am hopeful that it can be. So, while I am a big supporter of TAA, if TAA slows down the fast track, I am prepared to vote against TAA because, then, its defeat, sad to say, is the only way that we will be able to slow down the fast track. Now, I understand there will be some manipulations here one way or another as to what bill comes first and what can come up and what can't, but the facts are these, actually: if TAA fails, the fast track bill is stopped. They may take up the vote, as they said they would not, but they have changed. They may take up the vote, but it doesn't go anyplace. It is stuck in the station. And for that reason, because the Senate has sent us the bill that way, connected--and if the fast track passes, we will need TAA--sadly, I would vote against the TAA, and I just wanted you to know where I was coming from on that. For these and other reasons, I will be voting today to slow down the fast track in order to get a better deal for the American people-- bigger paychecks, better infrastructure. Help the American people fulfill the American Dream. Again, I thank Mr. Levin for his leadership, and I thank all of our colleagues who have worked so hard on this, really, on both sides of the issue.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chair, During rollcall vote No. 288 on H.R. 2578, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``nay'' when I should have voted ``aye.'' (By unanimous consent, Mr. McCarthy was allowed to speak out of order.) Legislative Program

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank Mr. Thompson and the ranking member, Mr. Levin, and members of the committee for bringing clarity to this debate today. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have always believed that innovation is what keeps America number one. I think that that is a view that is shared by all of us in the Congress. Our commitment on our side of the aisle, I know, is to science and to research and development, which create jobs, launch entire new industries, and give the miraculous power to cure. For Americans to continue to lead in the 21st century, for us to meet the challenges of our time, for us to secure a strong and sustainable future for America's families and the next generation, we must commit to fueling the engines of innovation. When President Kennedy challenged Americans to reach for the Moon, he reminded us that America must lead in innovation: The vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. Our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as to others, all require us to make this effort. However, according to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, these days, the United States has dropped to 10th place in national R&D investment as a percentage of the GDP. As their report makes clear: Unless basic research becomes a higher government priority than it has been in recent decades, the potential for fundamental scientific breakthroughs and future technological advances will be severely constrained. Instead of meeting this urgent need and challenge, Republicans are coming to the floor of this House today with not one but two bills that do violence to that aspiration. First of all, we have the so-called Republican R&D bill, a completely unpaid-for, permanent, and deficit-exploding tax extension. Democrats support the R&D tax credit, and we will be offering a motion to recommit for a 2-year extension to give Congress--Democrats and Republicans--time to work together to pass comprehensive tax reform that closes loopholes and pays for making this tax credit permanent. With this bill alone, Republicans will explode the deficit by $182 billion. This is just a part of a larger package of permanent, completely unpaid-for Republican tax measures this year that will add almost $600 billion to the deficit--over half a trillion dollars added to the deficit--including this bill, their bill to hand $269 billion to the 5,400 richest families in America. 5,400 families, and their estate tax bill would be getting the benefit of $269 billion paid for by the middle class in our country, depriving us of investments in our children's future. The fact is that House Republicans have spent this entire Congress blowing up the deficit with unpaid-for tax giveaways overwhelmingly tilted toward wealthy special interests. My colleagues, hear this: it is worth noting that this bill on the floor has nothing to do with enterprising startups that are unable to claim the R&D tax credit. Some of you have said to me: Well, we have all these startups in my district. By and large, they cannot benefit from this bill the way it is written. We would like to have written our motion to recommit to go further, to do that, but the Parliamentarians say, because you prevent it in your base bill, we can't go further. This is what is really stunning in the look of it all. On the same day as you are saying we are going to do a gotcha bill on R&D and challenge you all who support R&D not to vote for our approach, on the very same day--lest anybody think that this is an overwhelming interest in R&D on the Republican side of the aisle--Republicans are bringing to the floor a COMPETES Act that completely undermines everything to do with science and innovation in our country. It completely upsets our Innovation Agenda. In the 110th Congress we put forth the Innovation Agenda, a bill developed in a totally nonpartisan way. Anna Eshoo, Zoe Lofgren, and George Miller took the lead going across the country, getting input, nonpartisan input, academic input, venture capital input, technological input, into an Innovation Agenda. That Innovation Agenda really calls for making permanent and modernizing the R&D tax credit. We see the relationship between science, technology, innovation, and progress to keep America number one with R&D tax credits, but not done this way as we do here. This is a trap in order to keep us from investing in Innovation Agenda, and that was something that Bart Gordon, as chair of the Science and Technology Committee, fought for and achieved. ARPA-E, you know that, to name one thing. But instead, today, Republicans are bringing a bill that totally does violence to all this. I hope Members will listen to and support the alternative presented by Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, our ranking member on the committee. But, anyway, the original COMPETES Act by the Democratic Congress was supported by an overwhelming number of Republicans. A majority of the Republicans defied their leadership and voted for the COMPETES Act in the 110th Congress, and that original bill passed in a bipartisan way. We laid the foundation for new industries that provide jobs for our workers, that open new markets for American products, that ensure that we continue to ``rise above the gathering storm.'' Norm Augustine and others led the way to show what the gathering storm was unless we made those investments in science and technology. As I said, we created ARPA-E, so important. This Republican bill betrays everything that the COMPETES Act did. The Republican bill betrays everything that the COMPETES Act did. It is an assault on science and a plan to surrender American leadership on innovation. Instead of investing in research and development, their bill slashes funding for essential initiatives at the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Energy research. It cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D by $496 million. It is huge, half-a-billion-dollar cut, nearly 30 percent below what was appropriated last year. It cuts ARPA-E by $140 million, 50 percent below the level in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill passed last week. Most insidiously, Republicans are attacking science they don't even want to hear. Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't mean it isn't true. In this COMPETES bill that they are presenting, they are trying to silence the climate, environmental, and social science they have consistently tried to ignore. The Republican bill goes so far as to forbid Federal agencies such as EPA and FERC from using any research funded or developed by DOE, a brazen attempt to divorce their decisions from scientific inquiry. So again, the very idea that, on this floor today, they come out with this masquerade of R&D tax credits, $182 billion added to the deficit, with the impression that they care about R&D. R&D into what? R&D into nothing that is about innovation to keep America number one. These Republican bills represent a perfect manifestation of Republican trickle-down economics. The choice that our country has to make in the economy as we go forward is trickle-down economics versus middle class economics. Trickle-down theories have not worked. They are what got us in trouble in 2008, and it is exactly what the Republicans are trying to take us back to. Today is one manifestation of that. Republicans are seeking to ransack our Nation's investments in the future, our commitment to science, our commitment to our children's education, our commitment to bigger paychecks, and our commitment to better infrastructure for every American family. We need to come together in a bipartisan way, and that is very possible. We did it with the COMPETES Act before. To pay for R&D tax credit extension, we need to reject this Republican assault on science that will happen later today. We need to invest in the future of innovation of our country, of hard-working American families. We need to reject failed trickle-down economic theories and accept that the success of our Nation depends on bigger paychecks for America's working families. R&D tax credits made permanent and modernized are a significant part of that, but they are not a part of it if they take us deeper into debt, preventing us from making the investments in the future. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this fiscally irresponsible R&D bill, ``no'' on their destructive COMPETES Act, and ``yes'' on the proposal made by Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, who I thank for her great leadership for keeping America number one.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health care.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, the distinguished Delegate from the District of Columbia. I thank her for her courageous, relentless, persistent, effective leadership and representation of the District of Columbia. I come to the floor, Madam Speaker, to ask several questions. I think they have to be addressed to you. How many times have our Republican colleagues come to this floor to express their belief in reducing the role of government, of the Federal Government? How many times have they come to the floor to preach their deference to states' rights and local government? And how many times have these House Republicans thrown all of that out the window when it comes to meddling, government meddling in the reproductive choices of America's families? Here we are with Republicans who disapprove a duly passed D.C. law in order to enable businesses to fire their employees for the reproductive health decisions that they make. And not only that, not only the decision that the employee makes, but the decision that a spouse makes or a dependent, a child, makes. Allowing employers to fire employees for using birth control or in vitro fertilization, which answers the prayers of so many families, or any other reproductive health service is an outrageous intrusion into workers' personal lives. This is Hobby Lobby on steroids. This is about a business firing someone--man or woman--for private health decisions with no bearing on the workplace. In fact, if Republicans have their way, employers would not need to cite religion at all to discriminate against employees for their reproductive decisions. House Republicans--and I say House Republicans, Madam Speaker, because this isn't what Republicans think throughout the country. House Republicans need to recognize that personal healthcare choices are not your boss' business. A business has no right to threaten its employees for their reproductive choices or for the reproductive choices made by members of their families. I keep saying it over and over. House Republicans have no business using this House of Representatives to enable such appalling discrimination. I urge my colleagues to stand against this radical assault on the rights of workers and families here in D.C. Again, how many times have we seen our House Republican colleagues come to the floor to speak of their belief in reducing the role of the Federal Government? Not so fast, families of the District of Columbia. This doesn't mean you. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on March 26th, San Francisco lost a great civic leader, philanthropist and beloved friend. Nan McEvoy was a trailblazing, entrepreneurial woman whose wisdom, courage, and generosity, reminded us of our responsibility to improve our communities and our world. Nan strengthened our democracy through her service at the newspaper her family founded, the San Francisco Chronicle, and set a sterling example as a compassionate and concerned global citizen as an early Peace Corps volunteer. All of Nan's many friends knew that, although her commitment to public service was well known and respected, her love of her family as a mother and grandmother was first and foremost in her life. Phyllis Ann Tucker was born into a prominent publishing family on July 15, 1919 in San Mateo, California. Her grandfather, M.H. de Young, founded the one hundred and fifty year old newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle. During the war, Nan worked as a writer and a reporter for the newspaper, and helped cover the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco. After the war, Nan made her home in Washington, D.C., where she became an active leader in public service, philanthropy, and politics for four decades. She participated in the 1956 presidential campaign of Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson and, in 1961, became a top aide to Sargent Shriver, the founding director of the Peace Corps, where she was later chosen to run the Corps' African programs. In 1965, she opened the Washington office of the Population Council, a nonprofit agency addressing global issues of population, poverty, development and health. She also served as a U.S. delegate to UNESCO, the cultural arm of the United Nations. Returning to San Francisco, she assumed leadership of the family newspaper as Chair of the Board of Chronicle Publishing from 1981-1995. She was a true believer in journalism and wholly committed to preserving the family company. She served as a board member at the University of California, the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco and the San Francisco Symphony, among other San Francisco organizations, and was the first woman to chair the governing board of the Smithsonian American Art Museum in Washington, D.C. After Chronicle Publishing was sold, Nan devoted her energies to producing premium extra virgin olive oil at her ranch outside Petaluma in Marin County. The company is now the country's largest producer of certified organic estate-produced extra-virgin olive oil and has been rated as among the best in the world. Our country has lost a pioneer woman, our community has lost a gracious leader and my family has lost a dear friend. May it be a comfort to Nan's son, Nion, her grandchildren, Helen, Nion, Jr. and Griffin, and her entire family that so many people mourn their loss and that Nan's legacy will always be an inspiration to the nation she loved.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank Mr. Pallone and Mr. Levin, our ranking members on the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, for their leadership and cooperation on this issue, as well as Chairman Ryan of the Ways and Means Committee and Chairman Upton of the Energy and Commerce Committee. This is a day that we really have to salute our staff. They have worked so hard. It was my honor to work with Speaker Boehner on this important issue to do what we came here to do--to legislate. We are the legislative branch. We are legislating. We are working together to get the job done for the American people. From Speaker Boehner's staff, I especially want to thank Charlotte Ivancic, who was extremely knowledgeable about health policy and was smart and fair about all of this. Wendell Primus of my staff was a strong voice for the concerns of seniors and children and the rest in those discussions. Ed Grossman and his team at House Legislative Counsel--for all the ideas that Members churned up, Legislative Counsel had to translate that into what the possibility was for legislative language. They worked 24/7, weekends included. Megan O'Reilly, Bridget Taylor, and the technical teams at CMS and HHS worked 24/7 for many days. Holly Harvey and Tom Bradley and the team at the Congressional Budget Office, having to score every change of idea that we may have had. Again, the staff both at the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee on both sides of the aisle, I take the time to recognize them because in recognizing them, I really want to recognize the work that is done by staff on all that we do here. All of these individuals, again, have been working 18-hour days for the past few weeks, and we thank them for their tireless hard work. This package includes many important victories for low-income seniors, children, and families. There are many reasons to support this bill, four of which I would like to point out: We are strengthening the quality of care for many older Americans with additional funding for initiatives that help low-income seniors pay their Medicare part B premiums. We have added almost $750 million for training more urgently needed nurses and physicians. We have secured the health care of poor children with a 2-year extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program at the same rates set by the Affordable Care Act. Many people wanted more, as did I. That does not diminish the importance of the 2-year extension. Lastly, we have secured critical funding for community health centers over the next 2 years, expanding a vital investment in underserved communities. I am proud to rise in support of this historic, bipartisan package. It represents bold, necessary progress for our country. And it is not just about enabling our seniors to see their doctors, which was the original purpose of the bill. It is about how we can increase performance and lower cost; it is about value, not volume of service; it is about quality, not quantity of procedures; and this legislation is transformative in how it rewards the value, not the volume. So I am proud to support it. At long last, we will replace the broken SGR formula and transition Medicare away from a volume-based system toward one that rewards values, ensures the accuracy of payments, and improves the quality of care. With this legislation, we give America's seniors confidence that they will be able to see the doctors they need and the doctors they like, liberating them and their families from the shadow of needless, annual crises. And as a woman, during Women's History Month, I am very proud of what the legislation means to women and their health issues. So for these and other reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.'' It was my privilege to work with the Speaker in a bipartisan way on this legislation. I hope it will be a model of things to come.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I say with great pride how impressed all of us are by his statement of values that he has put forth in this House Democratic budget; the breadth of knowledge, the depth of commitment, the vision for a strong way to keep America number one. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen, and thank you to members of the House Budget Committee. We say it all the time. A budget should be a statement of our values. What is important to us as a nation should be reflected in how we allocate our resources. Are we allocating them as investments in the future, the education of our children, the building of our infrastructure, to promote commerce, to protect the environment, to improve the quality of life of all Americans? Or is it a budget that subscribes to trickle-down economics of the Republican Party, which have never been successful for America's hard-working families? Instead, we have a budget that subscribes to what President Obama spoke about in the State of the Union Address: middle class economics. That is a better set of values to build a strong and prosperous future for America that is reflected in the House Democratic budget, but, as I said, this budget should be a statement of our values. And I just ask you, Mr. Chairman--I am allowed to ask our colleagues--is that correct, Mr. Chairman?--to address a comment?

Ms. PELOSI. Okay. So you are the one, Mr. Chair. For you and for all you represent, I ask you: Do you think it is a statement of values of the American people to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country while increasing taxes on the middle class by around $2,000? We don't begrudge the wealthy their success and their achievement; but why should people come forth and say we are going to balance our budget by giving tax increases to the middle class and tax decreases to the very wealthy? By the way, it doesn't balance the budget. The Republican budgets are not balanced. Is it a statement of value to end the boost in child tax credit; end higher education tax credit; freeze Pell grants for 10 years, thereby curbing the opportunity for people not only to reach their fulfillment, but for our country to be competitive and keep America number one? It is not just about personal aspirations. That would be reason enough. This is also about keeping America number one because we know that innovation begins in the classroom. If we want to have great innovation, we have to have access to education to many more people; then again, this budget--the Republican budget--does not invest in innovation in any way. Is it a statement of value to say to seniors we are now going to end your Medicare guarantee and focus on for you to pay more for preventive care and high prescription drug costs, instead of keeping what we have now--which is free preventive care for seniors--and reducing their prescription drug care? Infrastructure--the Republican budget abandons the Nation's crumbling infrastructure by cutting $187 billion, or more than 19 percent, from transportation funding over the coming decades. How could that be a statement of values when we are not building the infrastructure of our country? By the way, infrastructure and transportation have, in years past, not been partisan issues. This is the place where you come together because it made all the sense in the world to build the infrastructure of America, to know that no maintenance is the most expensive maintenance. Their bill, it is just stunning to see that, once again, the Republican budget repeals the Affordable Care Act. Now, mind you, the Affordable Care Act has nearly $1 trillion in savings. They take the savings and spend it on other things like tax cuts for the rich, but they repeal the bill. It just doesn't make any sense at all. I just don't understand how you can't see that that doesn't add up. This budget savages the investments needed to keep America number one in the global economy with even deeper cuts than the already devastating sequester. I know that, if you are sitting at home and watching this on TV, you are thinking: What does this mean to me? Well, what this means to you is that this is a budget that--our House Democratic budget works for hard-working Americans, making it easier to own a home, easier to send a child to college, easier to have a secure and enjoyable retirement. Even if your child does not want to go to college, you can enable your child to reach his or her aspirations because of your own financial security. For us to achieve a bright and durable future for our country, we must embrace the fact that financial security of our working families is both the measure and the engine of our Nation's success. Democrats are proud to offer a budget that grows opportunity, prosperity, and dignity for every American, not just the wealthy and the well connected. It is time for Republicans to abandon their fuzzy math and their broken priorities and come together with Democrats to pass a budget dedicated to the future of hard-working American families. I think that is what we all came here to do, Democrats and Republicans, but you would never know it to see not one but two of the Republican budgets they have put forth today. That is why I am so proud of the work of the House Budget members on the Democratic side. That is why I commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) for his superior work on this subject and for having a budget that reflects the values of the American people for a brighter future.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to praise a great man, Father Theodore Hesburgh, on whom Congress proudly bestowed the Congressional Gold Medal in 2000. On Thursday, February 26, America lost a dedicated member of the clergy, an exceptional educator, a caring humanitarian, a civil rights champion, and one of the most outstanding leaders of our era: Reverend Theodore Martin Hesburgh, former president of the University of Notre Dame, who passed away last week at the age of 97. Father Hesburgh leaves behind a towering legacy that inspires all of us to keep fighting for a world that honors the spark of divinity in each one of us. Father Hesburgh encouraged those he encountered to ``be the kind of person who not only understands the injustices of this life, but is also willing to do something about them.'' He lived his life by that standard--never failing to answer the call to serve in any capacity. Throughout his life, Father Hesburgh was called to serve and advance the cause of human dignity and justice in our society. He was named to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. He marched arm-in-arm with Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. He was an insistent champion for the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, and his contributions to that effort earned him the Medal of Freedom from President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Time and again, he stood up and spoke out for peace, justice and equality for all people--and as former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Andrew Young once said, ``If Father Hesburgh was for you, you didn't care who was against you.'' Father Hesburgh was first called to serve his faith and his fellow Catholics. After undergraduate school at Notre Dame, Hesburgh traveled to Rome to study at the Gregorian University. When war broke out, he returned home and, in 1943, Father Hesburgh fulfilled his childhood dream when he was ordained at his alma mater as a priest in the Congregation of Holy Cross--a day he described as ``the happiest'' of his life. He would go on to earn a doctorate of theological studies at the Catholic University of America, but he returned to his beloved Notre Dame where he first served as chaplain following World War II and would continue to say Mass throughout his whole life. Father Hesburgh was called to serve the future of our country as a brilliant educator and administrator. He ministered to the Notre Dame community as a professor, chairman of the Department of Religion, and executive vice president, and in 1952, at the age of 35, Father Hesburgh became the 15th President of the University of Notre Dame. Under his historic 35 years of leadership, Notre Dame opened its doors to women, increased workforce diversity, doubled its enrollment, expanded its endowment, and cemented its place as one of the greatest universities in the world. Yet President Hesburgh's imprint extended further than a single campus. He demonstrated how to transform Catholic universities into exemplary institutions of higher education in modern times. He championed academic freedom and the pursuit of academic excellence. In recognition of his extraordinary leadership, he was entrusted with 16 presidential appointments, including service on the Presidential Clemency Board, the National Science Board, and as ambassador to the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development. He served as the Holy See's permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency under three popes. In 1999, he received his 150th honorary degree, more than any other person in history. In every position, after every honor, Father Hesburgh never lost sight of his purpose. As he once told a group of graduates, ``We will not be judged by our degrees, but by our lives.'' By any standard, President Hesburgh was exceptional. Father Hesburgh's career illustrates the quote attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, ``preach the Gospel and sometimes use words.'' As a patriot of our country, as a leader of his church, as a teacher and mentor, he lived the Gospel each and every day of his storied life. On the streets, in classrooms, and in boardrooms, Father Ted--as he was known by his friends and his students--was courageous enough to speak out against injustice, compassionate enough to bring healing to the downtrodden, and creative enough to propose ideas that improved the lives of all people. Today and forever more, the legacy of Father Ted will live on in the lives he touched, the institutions he influenced, the Church he loved, and the nation he was proud to call home. We are grateful for his courage, in awe of his leadership, and humbled by his generosity of spirit. May it be a comfort to all who loved Rev. Hesburgh that so many share in their grief during this sad time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, with great pride I join my constituents and all San Francisco Bay Area residents in celebration of the 2015 Panama- Pacific International Exposition Centennial--our yearlong civic celebration to commemorate the Exposition's historic significance and reflect on its legacy. One hundred years ago San Francisco welcomed nearly 20 million visitors from across the nation and around the world to witness its rebirth after the devastating 1906 Earthquake and fire and its emergence as a global city. Six hundred acres along the western waterfront of the Marina District became the site for the ``Jewel City''. Eleven Beaux-Arts Palaces were built that contained 21 international pavilions. Beyond the impressive architecture were exhibitions of the new technologies of the day--cars, airplanes, telephones, motion pictures. Most beloved of the surviving structures is the Palace of Fine Arts-- an exquisite and sublime Greco-Romanesque rotunda designed by celebrated architect Bernard Maybeck. Other surviving landmarks include a Municipal Auditorium, known today as the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium that instilled great civic pride and optimism in a dispirited population. The Panama-Pacific International Exhibition established our City as an economic and cultural powerhouse, illustrating our leadership in science, industry and innovation. It was a grand showcase of human achievement in the sciences, engineering, architecture and the arts. It was a monumental display of, not only San Francisco's vision, imagination and innovation, but its confidence and faith in the future. San Francisco today is still regarded as an optimistic and audacious city, a city of dreamers and innovators, much like the pioneers and visionaries of 1915. And as we celebrate the centennial of this great moment in our city's history, we are overjoyed that more than thirty- five Bay Area cultural, civic and business organizations will participate in the centennial's events, exhibitions and activities. Congratulations and our deepest gratitude to The California Historical Society, the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department, the Maybeck Foundation, Innovation Hangar, and all the other contributing partners and sponsors for this historic commemoration and extravaganza.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and congratulate her on her exceptional leadership as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. I also commend our colleague, Congresswoman Roybal-Allard, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, for her great leadership to protect the American people, to keep American security strong and certain. I also thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Rogers, for the important work that was done leading up to December to have bipartisan legislation, to have an omnibus bill that funded all of the departments of government except, unfortunately, Homeland Security for the full time, and that is really a disappointment because the first thing we do as Members of Congress is to take the oath of office to protect and defend the American people. That we would have this be the last bill that we would fund fully is really shameful. The fact is that the Senate has acted in a strong bipartisan way. I always like to talk about time. It is about time, it is about the time that has been lost from December until March 19, in terms of what the intentions are of our Republican colleagues here. It is about the time lost, the uncertainty placed on our security. It is so sad. At the same time, this morning, the Senate, in a very strong bipartisan way, passed a clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill. The papers are here. We could take it up immediately, send the bill to the President, and the crisis would be over--long overdue, mind you, but, nonetheless, bipartisan and with great certainty. Instead of that certainty, while the Senate Republicans have joined the Senate Democrats for sending this bill over here, House Republicans instead have continued to manufacture a crisis that does not exist but exacerbates the insecurity of our country by their inaction. The fact is this bill that the Senate has sent over has the support of every Democrat in the House. The Roybal-Allard-Lowey legislation is cosponsored by every Democrat in the House: full funding for the full term for the Department of Homeland Security. All of our Members--Democratic and Republican--will have a chance to vote on that in terms of the previous question, in terms of a motion to recommit, and in terms of motions to instruct conferees. What we are missing is the ability of the Speaker to give us a vote on the Senate bill. Give us a vote, Madam Speaker, give us a vote-- instead, drip, drip, drip, drip. The Republican leadership is putting forth legislation drip, drip, drip for the resources. Now, I want to read the words of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who has been a great leader in the position he holds. In his remarks, he goes through all the reasons why a shutdown would be harmful. To those who want a shutdown, read his letter, please. He does go on to say: As I have so noted many times, mere extension of a continuing resolution has many of the same negative impacts. A short-term continuing resolution exacerbates the uncertainty for my workforce and puts us back in the same position, on the brink of a shutdown just days from now. Can our Republican colleagues say that we won't be on the brink of another shutdown in the next few weeks in terms of the legislation they are putting forth? What is the purpose of it? If the purpose is to oppose the President's immigration policy, the court has given you a face-saving way out. If the purpose is to have a better idea about immigration, bring up a bill, but if the purpose is to inject uncertainty into the security of the American people, shame, shame, shame, because it undermines our ability to the American people, it undermines the oath that we all take, and it is really a very sad day. I would urge my colleagues, as they weigh the equities, we all want to make sure that the workforce of DHS is fully engaged, employed, and paid. I would just like to ask my colleagues who have been advocating for a shutdown or take us to the brink of a shutdown over and over again if they would like to live without being paid as Members of Congress. Most of our workforce makes much less than Members of Congress. They live paycheck to paycheck. Why are we saying to them, Come to work, 160,000 some of you, don't get paid, but get paid later? They don't have trust funds. That may come as a surprise to you-- perhaps you do, and maybe that is why you don't think not getting a paycheck is a big deal. Then to the other, say, 30,000: Stay home, don't come anywhere near here and not get paid. Some say: Oh, they will get paid later. Well, that is not the way it works. They have mortgages, rent, car payments, and all the rest. What could you possibly be thinking? What equity could you weigh against security, respect for our workforce, and morale of the people who are on the front lines to protect our homeland security? There was quite a lively debate a number of years ago, and I was part of it as a member of the leadership to establish the Department of Homeland Security and the Committee on Homeland Security in the House, and hence the Subcommittee on Homeland Security on the Committee on Appropriations. The words were chosen very carefully, ``Homeland Security''--home--``Homeland Security.'' The American people should know what this means to their home security. The list is a long one, but I will just do a few things to say that without a full funding bill, without the full-year funding bill, DHS cannot award $2.5 billion in grant funding. That means that if you are in an Urban Area Security Initiative area, a place that would be targeted, maybe 40 of the urban areas in our country, $600 million in grants would be withheld. FEMA, $350 million in emergency management preparedness grants. $350 million in SAFER. SAFER is Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Responses. That is an acronym, SAFER. That means a lot in your neighborhood. $340 million in firefighter assistance grants, $120 million for emergency food and shelter grants, and $100 million in flood-related grants. All of this hit home, and they hit Homeland Security. So these numbers have an impact, ramifications in the lives of the American people beyond the workers; beyond the workers, but the people that they work for. So I would urge my colleagues to think another time about this. We have the paper. The bill is here. It has passed in a strong bipartisan way in the Senate. Every House Democrat has endorsed the bill. We will vote for it with the parliamentary options that are available to us. How much better if we all came together, as the Senate Republicans and Democrats did, come together to support certainty in our security? Otherwise, the question is: Why not? Why are you not taking advantage of this great opportunity? The courts saved you face. What happened in Paris added to the urgency. The examples of people being picked up in our own country make matters worse. Stop the drip, drip, drip of funds week to week. Let's get the job done for the American people by doing it right, following the lead of the Senate Republicans and the Senate Democrats. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation. I appreciate the concerns we all have about a shutdown of government. We can't let that happen, but this is not the way to go. With that, again, I commend Congresswoman Lowey, Congresswoman Roybal-Allard, Congressman Bennie Thompson, the authorizing committee for their great leadership on our side. The chairman of the committee, Mr. Rogers, knows I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. I feel sad for him that he is in this situation. I hope that we can get out of it soon.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I congratulate him on his great leadership as he has taken the helm as our Democratic ranking member on the Education and the Workforce Committee. Madam Chair, education is the single most important investment a nation can make in its future, a family can make in its children. Nothing returns more money to the Treasury than the investment in education, whether it is earliest childhood education, K-12, higher education, postgrad, lifetime learning; and nothing contributes more to the success of our children than education, which gives them a chance to succeed. That is why, in 1965, Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, one of the great pillars of President Johnson's war on poverty. President Johnson told the people who gathered for the bill signing: From our very beginnings as a nation, we have felt a fierce commitment to the ideal of education for everyone. It fixed itself into our democratic creed. The Republican legislation before us today makes a mockery of this legislation's legacy and hollows out the foundation of our democracy: an educated and empowered citizenry. Here is how. For the first time in more than 50 years, a majority of public school students in our country lives in poverty. Too many children are getting left behind. This Republican bill slams the door of opportunity for students who are striving to earn an education. How will students achieve equality of opportunity without equality of education? How will students be able to maintain America's innovation leadership if they attend schools without a reliable technology infrastructure? This proposed legislation eviscerates our investments in the future, and it is a monumental step backward in keeping our promise to America's children. Republicans are turning back the clock on civil rights protections, academic achievement, funding for struggling schools, access to college prep curriculum for underserved children; and they are turning back the clock on students of color, students with disabilities, students who are homeless or who are living with foster families, migrant students, and those learning English as a second language. This bill guts resources for the most impoverished schools, and it gives those resources to the richest schools. Rather than increase investments in schools, this legislation diverts resources and critical programs away from our schools, away from our students most in need. Rather than provide a pathway for success to help our children prepare for the future, this legislation locks in Federal budget cuts for the rest of the decade. Rather than ensure funds are used for the classroom and teaching, this legislation lets limited resources be used for other purposes, such as tax cuts for the wealthy or sports stadiums. This bill does nothing to invest in early education. It does nothing to ensure lifetime learning. It does nothing to update classroom technology and infrastructure, and it does nothing to boost the STEM curriculum. President Obama has already declared his intention to veto this recycled, reheated, retrograde, warmed-over stew Republican legislation that lacks the support of the civil rights community, the English as a second language community, teachers, education advocates, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Instead, we should take up the alternative bill put forth by Mr. Scott. His bill, in its wisdom, protects students' rights, guarantees access to world-class education for all students, and supports teachers and school leaders with better resources. The substitute legislation put forth by Mr. Scott empowers schools and districts to tailor to local needs and ensures States set high standards and goals so students are career- and college-ready. It is our moral obligation as a country to ensure that all children have equal access to a well-rounded, world-class education--and Mr. Scott's substitute does just that. He has presented an alternative that fulfills the promise of the landmark legislation passed in 1965-- another 50-year anniversary--which is to ensure that access to high- quality education is the right of every student and not just some. We must honor that responsibility. Madam Chair, frequently, people ask me: What motivated you to be involved in politics? I am a mom with five children. I want, of course, the best for my children, as every parent does. I saw that they had tender loving care, the opportunity for education, and the rest. But the best for each of our children is that every other child has access to education. We do no favor to our children--and, in my case, our grandchildren--if we say, We want the best for you, and not pay attention to the needs of other children in our society. What kind of transitioning from one generation to the next is it if we say, My kids got the best--and, in some cases in this bill--at the expense of other children? It is just not right. It is not the moral thing to do. It is not the patriotic thing to do. It doesn't honor our Founders' commitment to a democracy which calls upon an educated population. So we must honor all of our responsibilities, personally and civically; reject this bill; and make certain that quality education is the right of every child in our country. I thank Bobby Scott, our ranking member, for giving us that opportunity, and I urge all my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on his substitute.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I commend her and Congresswoman Lowey for their very important motion to instruct conferees to accept the Senate language. Madam Speaker, I want to address some of what a previous speaker had mentioned, but I am going to go to the most recent previous speaker. If you feel so strongly--because I don't know if this is about thinking or feeling--about the immigration issue and the executive actions taken by the President, I respect that; but why are you jeopardizing the homeland security of the United States of America by attaching your emotions to this bill? That is what this is about. If you have an argument about immigration, have an immigration bill come to the floor, and let's have that debate. You did say that we have given up the opportunity to act responsibly. That is exactly what you are doing today. Policy differences about immigration or the rest are a legitimate debate in this great marketplace of ideas that is called the House of Representatives; but it is not for you to hold hostage the homeland security of our country, to jeopardize the opportunity to prepare, to have what is current and necessary for the realities of the threats that we are facing now instead of--3 months since December until, it would be, March 19--3-month-old funding carried over from last year. A lot has happened since then in Paris, in the Middle East, with threats in our own country. Get a grip on our responsibility. Get a grip, Madam Speaker. Give us a chance to vote on a bill that passed by more than two-thirds in the United States Senate with strong bipartisan support. As far as your criticisms of President Obama, nobody said ``boo'' over there when President Reagan used--justifiably so, rightfully so-- his executive orders on protecting immigrants in our country. George Herbert Walker Bush, the same. President Clinton. George W. Bush, who was one of the best Presidents on immigration in our country, wasn't able to convince his Republican colleagues to respect immigration as the invigoration of our country. But, nonetheless, he led on that subject. So you have made a mess. We have so many bills, counter bills, CRs, all the rest of it coming back, forward, and all the rest, and every time I ask all of you what is happening, everybody says: I don't know. It is only 8 hours until the government will shut down. That can't possibly happen. And I want to address that point. Someone has said to me, Well, the President said he won't let the government shut down-- that he would sign this 3-week option. That is a bad choice that we have given the President--to shut the government down or extend it for 3 weeks--when that 3-week extension is as undermining to our national security as a shutdown in government. That is just not right. It is not responsible on our part. So I say to our colleagues, if they want to go down that path of poor choices, let the Republicans do that. If they have got multiagendas here, anti-Obama agendas here about immigration and the rest, let them go down that path. Let them put their 218 votes on the board without our associating ourselves with it. And just because the President's person says of the two bad choices he would choose the 3 weeks if it came to his desk, don't let that deter you from voting ``no'' on that and ``yes'' on what Congresswoman Roybal-Allard and Congresswoman Lowey are putting forth as well. Yes, we do take that oath, as the gentleman said, whether you are a judge, whether you are in the military, whether you are in Congress, or the President of the United States, to protect and support the Constitution of the United States. We are not protecting anything with what you are doing here. We are not protecting anything. We are dragging it out. We are sending a message that, for some historic reason, we are now taking it out on Barack Obama because we are angry about what the gentleman on the Republican side said that Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush have done. Bring it up under another circumstance. Keep it off the protection of our country. Your chairman, Mr. Rogers, working with our ranking member, Congresswoman Lowey, was able to put together 12 bills which were a compromise--bills that everyone was prepared to support--until you decided you were going to use immigration to hold hostage the national homeland security of our country. And so kick the can to here. Now you have kicked the can to here, and now you are going to kick the can to March 19. What do you think is going to happen on March 19? We have already had two recesses today in this very day of congressional deliberation. What do you think you are going to accomplish later if you are not willing to grow up, bite the bullet? You made your point. Your colleagues, the Republican Senators, do not agree to drag this out. They have given you a face-saving path. The judge in Texas gave you a face-saving path. ``I am Charlie''--``Je suis Charlie''--gave you a face-saving path. The urgency is very, very clear--well, clear to everyone except if you happen to exist in this Chamber--when your negative attitudes toward President Obama have so overwhelmed you that you are willing to jeopardize the homeland security of our country. So whether it is firefighters, the SAFER Act, FEMA, or anything where the Federal Government comes in contact with people, you are standing in the way and using immigration as the excuse. For some of you, it may be a reason. Maybe it is for some of you, but for some of you it is an excuse. And for all of you it is a shame. It is a shame. One gentleman said: If we accept the Senate language, we are not living up to our responsibility to have a bill in the House. And then you expect them to accept your language. Doesn't it hold true both ways? If you don't want to accept their language, why do you expect them to accept your 3-week language? Do you not understand the legislative process? This Constitution, which we value, has the legislative branch. The first article of government is the legislature, preeminent. The President can't sign what we don't send him, in terms of making the law. He can take executive action, but the law is stronger. Let us honor our responsibilities and stop standing in the way of protecting the American people. It is about the security of the American people versus the philosophy that you have going over there, which is perfectly to be respected in another piece of legislation. Let's have that debate separate from protecting. It is about time for us to come together to get the job done. The Senate did it. We can. Please support Congresswoman Roybal-Allard's and Congresswoman Lowey's motion to instruct the conferees to accept the Senate bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R. 861, the clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill, that will keep the Department open so it can carry out its mission of keeping the American people safe.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on helping to have a budget that produces growth to reduce the deficit. Mr. Speaker, today, we are talking about issues on which we are very much in agreement in terms of the policy toward charitable giving. In fact, some of this legislation has been introduced by Mr. Levin and Mr. Thompson on the Ways and Means Committee, in fact, in offering an amendment in Rules last night, which was rejected by the Rules Committee, to go forward in a way that was fiscally sound and was paid for. Here is the problem that we have. We all want to have comprehensive tax reform, where we can close loopholes and we can lower the tax rate and we can have transparency in our Tax Code. In order to go to the table to do that--and I know there is bipartisan interest in doing so-- we should go to the table with as much freedom as possible and not constrained by taking rifle shots on the floor of the House for certain pieces of the Tax Code. The whole package that the Republicans are putting forth is about $800 billion. That is a lot of money. It is important for people to know that, in our budget every year, we have a part of the budget that is called tax expenditures. They are well over $1 trillion. Some of them are worthy, and we want to protect them--certainly, charitable deductions fall in that category--but many of them are not. Many of those tax expenditures, which means giving a tax break whether it is special interest loopholes in the Tax Code to special interests, do not create growth. They increase the deficit, and they are just like spending. They are called expenditures because they are giving a tax break to certain special interests. Okay. How does that fit in here? We want to go to the table--put everything on the table--and subject it to agnostic scrutiny to say: What works for growth? What is fair about transparency? How do we proceed in a way that lowers the corporate rate? increases the revenue to the budget? that has fairness, simplicity, and transparency? What the Republicans are proposing this week is totally in opposition to our being able to do that effectively. What they are saying is let us take $800 billion--permanently, unpaid for--out of the mix, and then we have less to negotiate on in terms of what we can do on the other side of the budget, which are investments into the future. I have always said--and I think that most economists would agree-- that nothing brings more money to the Treasury or reduces the deficit more than investments in education--early childhood education, K-12, higher ed, postgraduate--lifelong learning. That is about growth. That is about bigger paychecks, confidence to spend, demand injected into the economy, jobs created, revenue produced. It is all part of how we can go forward with a budget for the future that creates growth and reduces the deficit. So we have this obstacle, which sounds very good. How do you vote against these provisions, which are good provisions, about nonprofits and conservation and all of these other things? We agree--as I say, our colleagues have introduced them--but then you say that they are permanently unpaid for. Again, mixing some of the good with the not so good is like a Trojan horse moving in. It looks good, but wait a minute. There is a lot in the gut of that horse that is not good for growth or for reducing the deficit. All we are saying to everyone today is we can come to agreement on some of the principles about tax deductions for charitable organizations. It is curious to hear our colleagues talk so movingly about providing food for hungry people when very few of them want to vote for food stamps, but that is a whole other issue. It just shows some inconsistency in all of this. Just remember this one thing: if we want to have comprehensive tax reform--if we want to reduce the deficit, if we want to have balance in terms of investments plus how we produce revenue--we have to do it in a comprehensive way. That is what a budget is about. What we are doing today is to throw up, to just stack the deck against any investments in growth, because we have already taken $800 billion off the table if we go down this path. What we are doing today is to say other tax reforms that we want to make for fairness are already in jeopardy because of some of what is in this. As I say, some are positive and some are not. Let's be discerning in how we make the judgment. You can't be discerning by saying: I am going to vote for permanent, unpaid-for tax expenditures--which, as I say, have a blend of positive and negative in them, but it is hard to make a distinction without seeing the whole, big picture of it. I urge my colleagues to say: While I support some of what is good in all of this, I do not support permanently taking it off the table for consideration and not paying for it at this time. In order to talk this through and have a clear instead of this drive- by approach to tax policy--an antideficit exploding spree that our Republican colleagues are on while they profess to be deficit hawks-- and while we are working this out and having a discussion about this, we, in our motion to recommit, will have a 1-year extension of the provision that we are talking about here so that, okay, in the course of this time, we will go forward with a tax extender for 1 year. Hopefully, in that time, under the leadership of the Budget chair, who is also from the Ways and Means Committee--he understands these issues very well. In fact, his own budget would not be consistent with what he is putting on the floor today as he is the former chair of Ways and Means, now of the Budget Committee. No. It is the reverse, but it is related. They are so related because how we produce revenue is so essential to how we do our budget, and the gentleman knows that because his own budget would be inconsistent with what is on the floor today. So I say to my colleagues: Hold on. Vote ``no'' on this. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit, which gives us a year to talk this through but to do so in a way that reduces the deficit, produces growth, makes bigger paychecks from that growth to increase more revenue, and we would have these provisions go forth in a way that is fair, that is paid for, and that is part of comprehensive tax reform. With that, again, I thank the gentleman for his exceptional leadership and the members of the Ways and Means Committee for their courage in opposing something that has popular appeal. There is a reason why. They are not bad policies. It is just that they are not paid for, and they are permanent. We should do this, but we should do it right. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill and ``yes'' on the motion to recommit. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman from Alabama, Congresswoman Terri Sewell, for her leadership and for introducing and driving forth this legislation to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the foot soldiers of Selma who fought for African Americans' right to vote. I thank her for the opportunity to speak. Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting and moving and inspiring to listen to the debate on this legislation, to hear the majority leader, to hear other Members of the Congress talk about how important what happened at Selma was to our country and what promise it made for the future of our country. I would hope that the logical conclusion of that--when we see people who are beaten and, in some instances at that time, killed, fighting for the right to vote--is that we would truly honor them not only with a Gold Medal, as wonderful as that is, but by passing the Voting Rights Act on the floor of the House. Today, listening to our colleagues, I am reminded of a day almost a year ago, around March of last year, when we dedicated the statue of Rosa Parks in the Capitol of the United States. How exciting--an African American woman to join the ranks of all those men out there. Many more striving to bring diversity, recognizing the great leadership of Rosa Parks. While we were there that very day, dedicating the statue of Rosa Parks, across the street at the Supreme Court they were hearing the arguments on the Voting Rights case. And it seems to me that it would have been so logical for us to be supporting the spirit of the Voting Rights Act. Of course the Court acted, and the Congressional Black Caucus took the lead. Many of us stood on the steps while the oral arguments were going on and later came here to dedicate the statue. But there seemed to be a total disconnect between those who were speaking in a bipartisan way about Rosa Parks and how important it was to our country and the fact that the Court was going to overturn a piece of the Voting Rights Act, and that we, 1 year later, have done nothing to correct that. So while it is beautiful and lovely to hear all of the good words, and it is fabulous for us to be awarding this Gold Medal, frankly, I think that the foot soldiers of Selma bring added luster to the Gold Medal, as we honor them with it. As we all know, this marks the 50th anniversary of two exceptional events in American history: the march on Selma and the passage of the Voting Rights Act. Fifty years ago, as we all know, thousands of people--students and scholars, homemakers and laborers, members of the clergy--the Greek Orthodox Church was very prominently there, and many other heroes--marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. Today, the undaunted courage and dignity of the men and women who marched continue to inspire our Nation--in fact, on the floor of the House today. Hopefully that inspiration will rise to a place in this House where we pass the Voting Rights Act. The gentleman from Georgia, John Lewis, who was there, has been acclaimed by all of us as a national treasure and a national hero. What an honor it is to serve with him in Congress and to call him ``colleague.'' The journey from Selma to Montgomery is more than 50 miles, but fatigue did not stop the marchers. State troopers used tear gas and nightsticks. Hatred, violence, and injuries did not stop them. Those brave foot soldiers, propelled by their faith in our country to live up to its promise, continued to march because they knew the power of the ballot. How proud all of us are, again, to serve in the House alongside Congressman John Lewis, the conscience of the Congress, who was one of the young leaders of the march toward equality and opportunity, toward justice, toward the ballot box. The bravery of the Selma marchers summoned this Nation to action. A week after Bloody Sunday, President Lyndon Baines Johnson came to this Chamber--right there--to call on Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act. And he said at the time: At times, history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord. So it was at Appomattox. So it was in Selma, Alabama. The courage of 8,000 marchers transformed the bridge into a national symbol of how justice can conquer the status quo. Today, that steel arch bridge over the Alabama River illustrates Dr. King's observation that we all quote all the time: ``The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.'' Today we propose to honor the foot soldiers of the Selma marches with the Congressional Gold Medal and by accepting our own responsibility to keep bending, pulling, and nudging that arc toward justice. One way we can do it is by passing the Voting Rights Act. Just to recall, Mr. Speaker, the last time we brought up the Voting Rights Act in 2006-2007, the Senate passed it unanimously. In the House, the vote was 390-33. There is bipartisan legislation that has been introduced which can be brought to the floor, passed, and signed into law in time for the Selma anniversary next month. And it certainly must be passed before the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act on August 6, the 50th anniversary. We must do so to push back against the same old stale, dressed-up, and renamed efforts to hamper voting access and hinder progress. Today, as we celebrate the foot soldiers--we pay homage, we reach deep inside of us to say how inspired we all were by it and isn't it wonderful--let's look to the now and say: Right now, to honor these people, we must pass the Voting Rights Act again to correct what the Court did. So as we pay tribute to the foot soldiers who kept on marching, we move forward from a painful past and march into a brighter, fairer future for everyone. Again, I thank the gentlewoman from Alabama, Congresswoman Sewell, for her leadership on this important issue.