Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, here we are again today in wonder over the decision that we think has been made by the Republican leadership in the House not to bring legislation to the floor that addresses the needs of those affected by Sandy. Here's the thing: Everyone who heard about this since last night, when so many Members from the New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, other delegations came to the floor to speak about this, said, Don't tell me that. Don't tell me that. Don't tell me that, even though everyone has seen very clearly the devastating damage that was caused by Sandy and the need for people to have assistance, the House would not take up the bill. Don't tell me that, even though the Senate passed a very strong bill addressing the well-documented needs of the people of the affected region, the House is not taking up the bill. Don't tell me that, although the region, the leadership, the Governor of New York, Governor Cuomo; the Governor of New Jersey, Governor Christie; the Governor of Connecticut, Governor Malloy; the Mayor of New York, Mayor Bloomberg; and others have immediately addressed the needs to the extent possible by them in their areas and have documented the needs very carefully as to what Federal participation was needed, don't tell me that the House of Representatives is going to ignore that. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the need for more civility in politics and in government, and that civility perhaps relates to how we speak to each other and how we curb our enthusiasm about issues we care a great deal about and question, perhaps, motivation of others. But the real civility that people expect is how this Congress treats them and treats their needs. And never is that tested more clearly than in time of a natural disaster, because that's when people feel the most helpless. That's the time when they see whether the government is there for them or not. That is the time where--they're not going to be made whole, most of these people. Hopefully, what they replace will be a good substitute, and maybe it can open a door to something new for them. But by and large, it's a long road back. But that first few steps of it, the emergency relief that was provided by the localities and now needs to be compensated for, the next stage of recovery is so essential to the character of a community. As Mr. Tonko said after the storms last year, it affected the character of the communities in his district, and that was 2011. Here we are at the end of 2012, having some of the same regions hit again by nature with the suddenness and the severity and the power of water and, in some places, fire, and just earth-shattering earth, wind, fire in terms of how it affects people. So as I said last night, nature pulled the rug out from under people, literally and figuratively, in their communities and in their homes, in their schools and in their workplace, and then are we to say to them, Now Congress is going to pull the rug out from under you in terms of your hopes and expectations of meeting the needs? Don't tell me that. We can't tell our constituents that. That would not rise to the level of civility for us to turn our backs and ignore their needs. It's just plain wrong. So I'm hopeful that perhaps those making this decision have not been affected by--almost everyplace, whether we're talking about Katrina or California, with earthquakes, drought, flood, fire, you name it, we get it all. With the Northeast being hit, once, twice, within 2011 and 2012, with Missouri, with Iowa--I visited Iowa and saw the effect of the floods there. It was devastating. It's really hard, unless you see it, to understand the impact that it has. The most compelling reason is the look in the eyes of people who ask, What are we going to do to help? How can we help them? And what is our answer? We're just too busy. It's not a priority. That's just not civil. So let's honor our responsibility, which is, again, the place where people place their trust. They ignore government. They don't like government. They don't want this; they don't want that. But in times like this, in time of emergency, is really when we prove our worth. Let's prove our worth and urge the Speaker to bring this legislation to the floor and quickly deal with it while the Senate is still there, it can be sent to the President for his signature, and hope can flow from here, instead of a sense of wonderment, of ``Don't tell me that.'' Let us be able to tell people we feel their pain. We know what they're going through. We can never really know, but we can certainly appreciate their interest in our doing what is right for them. So, again, I hope and pray. Because we pray for these people. We pray for them all the time. They're in our prayers. Some have lost loved ones. We pray for them. How much prayer would it take for this Congress to find it in their hearts and in their heads to do the right thing? Let's pray that we don't have to tell them that we weren't there for them.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his great leadership as our ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee and for bringing the clarity to our thinking on this important subject that we are dealing with this evening. My colleagues, many of us this morning began the day with the Vice President of the United States coming to the Democratic Caucus and speaking to us about legislation that passed the Senate last night 89- 8. That is absolutely historic. It was legislation that he helped negotiate, working with the Republican and Democratic leaders in the United States Senate. It was a remarkable accomplishment because, as we all know, while we share the same goals, we sometimes have different paths to achieving them; and reconciling our differences was a monumental task, especially with the time growing short. So we appreciate the leadership of the Vice President. We appreciate the leadership of the Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate, and we thank Speaker Boehner for bringing this legislation to the floor. Hopefully, we can duplicate the strong bipartisan vote that the legislation received in the United States Senate. And why is that important? It's important because the American people told us in the election they wanted us to work together. They have their differences too. They understand disagreement. They also understand compromise, and that is what this legislation represents. I listened attentively to the previous speaker who said he was voting for the bill for what was not in it. That's an interesting approach. We can judge all of the legislation that we vote on for what is in it or vote against it for what is not in it. But at some point you strike a balance. You balance the equities. Where do you come out in terms of making a choice? I hope we will reflect the will and heed the call of the American people to work together and follow the lead of the Senate with strong bipartisan support. What do they want us to do? What are their priorities? They want us to create jobs. They want us to grow the economy. They want us to invest in education. They want us to reduce the deficit. They want us to strengthen the middle class. And that is what this legislation does. It does so in a way that is not complete but is an important first step. We talked much about the gloom and doom of what would happen if we went over the cliff. Well, let's talk instead about what happens if we don't go over the cliff. And I believe that we will not, seeing the vote on the rule this evening. I believe that we will heed the American people and come together with a strong vote. By voting for this legislation and passing it in a strong way we'll increase the confidence of consumers, of the markets, of businesses, of employers to hire more. We will extend unemployment insurance to people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. This is very, very important not only to those individuals, but to our economy, because this is money that is spent immediately injecting demand into the economy, creating jobs. We'll extend permanent tax relief for the middle class--more than 98 percent of the American taxpayers, more than 97 percent of America's small businesses. We will support our middle class and strengthen it by supporting the child tax credits, tax credits for higher education, the American opportunity tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and the like. Our distinguished ranking member went through some of the provisions, but it's important to see them in light of what they mean to America's working families. By voting for this agreement, we will demonstrate that we have listened to the American people and we have heeded their call, once again, to work together in a bipartisan way. I want to salute President Obama. He campaigned on strengthening the middle class--I think all of us probably did--and this is one way for us to fulfill that promise. I don't know any piece of legislation that I've ever voted for that did everything that I thought it should do, but this is a very, very strong first step as we go into the new year. Let us send a message to the American people that, again, while this bill doesn't accomplish all that we need to do to grow the economy, reduce the deficit, and strengthen the middle class, it is a good way for us to have a happy start to a new year by taking this first step. I hope that as, again, you balance the equities, the pros and cons of this legislation, that you will weigh heavily in favor of the message that it sends to the kitchen tables of America about the respect we have for them in meeting their needs, meeting their challenges, honoring their aspirations. This great middle class is the backbone of our democracy. Let us all be very patriotic tonight and support our middle class and support our democracy. Vote ``aye'' on this strong bipartisan legislation which passed 89-8 in the United States Senate. Let's step up to the plate to do that in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, if you've ever had a natural disaster affect your area or if you have ever visited a natural disaster, be it in California, my home State, or on the east coast or in the Midwest, whether Iowa and the floods or Missouri in recent times, and spoke to and listened to the pain in the voices and saw the fright in the eyes of the people affected, you would wonder why we are not bringing this legislation to the floor. It isn't about a natural disaster; it's about a human experience. When I was a very new Member of Congress in the late eighties, we were affected in California by the Loma Prieta earthquake. I bring that up because the very next day after the earthquake, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Jamie Whitten, came to the floor of the House without anyone going to him or asking him. He went to the floor of the House and said to the people of California, Congress will honor our responsibility to the American people. We will put forth what meets the needs of the people. We need to work together to get that done. It was such a comfort. These were just words. It was such a comfort to the people just to hear that and to know that a chairman would act upon that. And for the past few weeks, I know that our colleagues from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, some in Pennsylvania and other surrounding areas, have been assuring their constituents and the people of their areas that the Federal Government would be there for them. It is a social compact. It is the most important tie they have to us. Again, if you could hear their personal stories you will know they'll never be made whole. The rug has been pulled out from under them in terms of their housing, their belongings, their pictures, their memories, the character of their neighborhoods. The rug has been pulled out, and now tonight, is this Congress, this House of Representatives, going to pull the rug out again from them legislatively? Just as a reminder, the Senate of the United States, in a bipartisan fashion, passed a $60.4 billion assistance program for this natural disaster. It met the documented needs that were put forth by the people of the regions, by Governor Christie, by Governor Cuomo, by Governor Malloy, Governor Bloomberg, and so many others. So, documented need. Again, it's not going to make everyone whole emotionally in their personal belongings and their memories and the rest, but it is a sign of respect that we cannot let what happened stand and that the resources will be there to try to return them to some sense of order and home and home life. I don't know if any decision has been made. I hope not. I hope that as the leadership meets and considers a possible agenda for tomorrow, they would reconsider this because this goes deep into the hearts of people as they feel a sense of helplessness for something they had no responsibility for, a natural disaster. Remember last year when we visited some of the places where homes were uprooted? It's earth, wind, and fire. When something like that happens, it's the wind, it's the water, it's the fire. It's every kind of thing assaulting people. Let's not be a part of that assault by putting doubts in their mind as to whether there is an appreciation for what they have lost, a respect for who they are, and honoring of our social compact that the government will be there when people are in need. Again, I hearken back to Jamie Whitten. We never had a moment to fear that our needs would be met. Let's just make this night pass as if it never happened. Let's just replace the impression that is out there with the idea that tomorrow we will take up the Senate bill or take up the compromise that has been worked out to take this in two tranches. We cannot leave here doing nothing. That would be a disgrace.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Tonight, we come to the floor to pay tribute to two people--Barney Frank and John Olver--who, in many ways, could not be more different. They are the same in this respect: they have made important marks on the Congress of the United States. What is special about them is that they are so different. But in their shared values, in their effectiveness, their knowledge of the issues and their ability to persuade our colleagues to join them in a vote, they share that talent, especially those values representing Massachusetts in the Congress. I had the privilege of serving with John Olver on the Appropriations Committee. So I saw firsthand and very close up his extraordinary mastery of the facts and the substance before us and his political astuteness to find a way to get the job done as a chairman and ranking member of an important subcommittee of Appropriations, Transportation, better known as THUD. He's a cardinal on that committee. That's what they call them. So as a cardinal, he commanded a great deal of respect from our colleagues, though that came easy to us because, as I say, we knew him well, his values and his judgment. I want to point out one thing in particular, and that is he always had an interest in promoting or empowering women, whether it was in the Congress or in the country or in the world. There were some early conversations I had with him about human rights violations against women--against anyone--but his concern was deep and knowledgeable. In Congress, he was supportive of advancing women into positions of power here. I can speak of that firsthand. And also for women in the country. His wife is an academic, as he is. Having served in this Congress all this time, you can still be considered that--an intellectual. Again, he always knew of what he spoke. He brought great passion, judgment, and deliberativeness. He was very deliberative in getting a job done. So it was an honor to call him ``colleague.'' He brought a special contribution to the Congress. Thank you, Congressman John Olver, for your leadership, for your friendship. Again, sitting there next to Barney Frank, who is a phenomenon, a force of nature, somebody very special to all of us; unique in terms of his incredible intellect and, in some people's opinion, great humor-- his and mine, for two. To serve with him is really an experience. We learned from him not only every time he spoke, because he spoke with such wisdom and knowledge of the subject, but also we learned from him how to get his attention, hold it--but not too long--and move on with whatever idea we had in mind. I had the occasion when I came to Congress the first time to call Barney and say, I'm so offended by what is going on on the floor. They're saying terrible things about people there who are in need, and the rhetoric went on and on and on and on. When I got to the end of it, he said, Why are you calling me? I said, Well, I want to know, what are we going to do about it? He said, What are you going to do about it? And next time you call me, just get right to the point right from the start. Well, that was very good advice. Now when I speak, I say, Barney, subject, problem, action needed, timing. And now we've gotten along great for decades. As one of my friends, John Burton, would say, he just wanted to know if you enjoyed the movie; he didn't want to know if you had butter on your popcorn. Just spare me the extra information that was not needed by him. So I first basked in his aura at the Banking Committee, where he was a leader on the Housing Subcommittee. We had that in common, representing Boston and San Francisco, two cities with the high cost of housing and knowing that we had to meet the needs of people who could not afford that high cost. So that respect for people's need to have the dignity of a home, no matter what their economic situation was, was, again, his commitment, as others have mentioned, to those at the lower place on the economic scale. So housing, affordability of it, the stock of it, the housing opportunities for people with HIV and AIDS, all of those kinds of issues. As you can imagine, he had the full view of it all in a way to get the job done. Discrimination--everybody has talked about it this evening, but it's a very transformative thing to see Barney talk about discrimination, how it affected him, could have affected him in his life, and how he didn't want that risk to be taken by other young people who might have had some questions about their sexuality and the rest. I remember when we were doing the hate crimes bill, fully inclusive hate crimes bill. It was really a very important bill that some people would have to take a political risk to vote for in their districts. When Barney came to the Caucus and spoke about it, he said, I'm the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. Important leaders of the financial community beat a path to my door. They want to hear what I think on subjects and tell me what they think. But I wasn't always the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. I was once a 16-year-old boy who had questions. I identify with those little boys now, those young people now, and that's why this was important. It was following the Matthew Shepard murder and all that that implied. But for him to have the generosity of spirit to share his innermost thoughts about his own life and how that instructed him to act, it was almost a moral imperative for him to act. He had a special responsibility, because of his own personal experience, to act. And Members just responded to him. He spoke to them in a very personal way. They responded to him in a very personal way, and we passed something very, very important for our country and discrimination. I remember the first time we passed the amendment to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Oh, my gosh, it was so exciting. It was so exciting. So I went up to Barney after the vote and I said, Barney, you're making history today. He said, Yes, because we repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I said, No. Because we did this amendment on the Defense authorization bill? I said, No, not because of that. That's history, yes, but we're making history because today you're going to vote for your first Defense authorization bill which has funding for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, in any event, knowing that we had a greater good, a separate issue to deal with and people were waiting to see how Congress would act, he of course made history by not only voting for an amendment to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but for the Defense authorization bill. Many like-minded and thinking and voting people who follow Barney's lead followed him down that path so that a bill would pass. But it just goes over and over again. It's the consumer, protecting the taxpayer, protecting the consumer; the bill, Dodd-Frank, of such magnitude and scope, having such important implications for, again, protecting Main Street. He was masterful, not just because he was protecting the consumer, but because he understood the balance that was necessary in the legislation. That was really a mark of his leadership all along. He always respected the views of all stakeholders and any initiative that was put forward. I see by the walking around of the dean of the Massachusetts delegation that time may be short, so I will reduce my remarks. But I did want to make sure people knew what an important force he was in providing affordable housing in our country, ending discrimination in every possible way--I just named two--in the fight against HIV and AIDS, in protecting the consumer and the taxpayer, and Dodd-Frank. I know that any of us who were at his wedding and any of us who danced with him at his wedding know that that was a special privilege indeed not shared by many, but a compliment indeed. He will be very missed. He will be missed for his intellect. Every time he spoke, we learned. He will be missed for his intellect. He will be missed for his parliamentary prowess. He was a master of parliamentary procedure and, I think, revelled in playing that role on the floor of the House. Again, always values based, loved his district, proud of the State of Massachusetts, and, really, a national figure that will go down in history as one of the greats to have ever served in the House of Representatives. Flamboyant--he's given me fashion advice, which is interesting getting fashion advice from Barney Frank. But I valued that. If he took the trouble or had the thought to make the point that I should give away a particular article of clothing because--not known for his sartorial splendor, nonetheless, if he made a point about it, he knew that there was some truth to whatever view he was expounding. So with that, I'm honored to join the Massachusetts delegation to sing the praises of two great leaders as they're different in terms of style, but significant, both of them, in their contribution to our country: Congressman--otherwise known as Chairman--John Olver, the cardinal from the Appropriations Committee, and Chairman Barney Frank, it's an honor to serve with you, a privilege to call you friend. Thank you for your service to our country.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of his very important resolution--to condemn the acts of a lone gunman in Newtown, Connecticut, and to offer condolences to the families and members of the community. I join him in the words of this resolution of saluting the courage of the teachers and administrators who gave their lives to save the children in their care and to thank the first responders who arrived on the scene to not only get survivors to safety but to end the succession of killings that were happening. Those first responders, Mr. Speaker, leave their homes every day knowing they're going to face danger, and they did that day as well; but in the face of it, they were heroic, as were the teachers and a counselor and the principal of the school. This has all been made very clear to us by our colleagues: Congresswoman DeLauro for whom children and the prevention of violence has been a priority for her; of course, Congressman Murphy, Senator- elect Murphy, who represents this district with such distinction and such compassion; Congressman Courtney; Congressman John Larson; and Congressman Jim Himes. All of them spoke with such beauty at our service earlier, at the candlelight service. It was so moving to hear their connections to the people there. Their words were universal. As the President said last night, this could have been happening any place. We can't tolerate this anymore, he said. These tragedies must end, and to end them we must change. To change our Nation is already beginning--to reassess the options before us. Leaders from both parties have stepped forward to put forth a series of steps on the table--from restoring the ban on assault weapons and assault magazines to strengthening the system of background checks. Again, we must address the challenge of mental health and keep weapons out of the hands of those in danger so as not to do harm to themselves and to others. The voices of reason cannot be silent. Through administrative and legislative action, we must limit the proliferation of weapons ammunitions that have no other purpose than to kill citizens. Our colleagues through the course of the evening--and Congresswoman Maloney just before me--talked about legislation that we could pass immediately, that which the American people expect us to do, and that is to ban assault magazines. Of course, we want to ban assault weapons but also ban assault magazines. proliferation of weapons ammunitions that have no other purpose than to kill citizens. Our colleagues through the course of the evening--and Congresswoman Maloney just before me--talked about legislation that we could pass immediately, that which the American people expect us to do, and that is to ban assault magazines. Of course, we want to ban assault weapons but also ban assault magazines. Why is it that somebody needs a magazine with 20 shots in it and could have two of those, and then 40 lives are at risk? Why is it? I'm not even asking that rhetorically. I'm asking it of those who are advocating that we shouldn't make this change. Haven't we crossed a threshold when children in school are not safe, when people who go to the theater in Aurora have someone come in and just kill them? I mean, just to use those words is very hard. I don't know what words we could ever use to comfort the families of Newtown, Connecticut. As a mother and a grandmother, I find it--you said ``unfathomable,'' Congresswoman Maloney--unspeakable, unthinkable, just impossible to imagine how they go forward; but hopefully, God will give them the strength and the courage to do so. It reminded me of a time before I was in Congress. I had the invitation of President Carter to visit Italy with a delegation--with Geraldine Ferraro, Italian American Members of Congress, Mario Cuomo, etc. We went there to deliver assistance from the United States Government after an earthquake in southern Italy. In one of the villages we visited, there was a rehearsal for first communion going on in the church, so just about every 7-year-old in the village was in church, practicing for first holy communion. When the earthquake hit, the roof came down, and every 7-year-old in the village was gone. It was impossible to console the people there. Not only had they individually lost their children, which is unthinkable, but the whole town had lost that class--their future, their new growth, their hopes, their babies. So I really transform my thinking about how fragile life is. This was a natural disaster. What happened in Newtown, Connecticut, was a personal decision about someone whose judgment was thoroughly impaired. How could he do it? Because he had his own problems. How could he do this? Because he had the guns. He had the assault magazines to do it. That's how he could do it. So let's at least try to mitigate, for circumstances that we may not be able to control entirely, the mental condition of someone, but at least limit the capacity to kill that that person has. Just hearing the reaction to the expressions of sympathy to the families, to see the President read the names and hear the sobbing, this is something that will scar our country. If we can do something to prevent it from happening again to this extent, maybe we can't prevent it all from happening, but if we're going to take care of our people, we have to take care of them in many ways--address the issue of violence, address the issue of mental health, address the issue of where mental health and assault magazines comes together. Some people are calling them high capacity or whatever. They're assault magazines. They make every weapon an assault weapon that they are compatible with, whether it's a pistol or rifle or whatever it is. So yes, we want to ban assault weapons, but these assault magazines make every weapon that they are compatible with an assault weapon. It doesn't take a whole lot to figure out what we need to do immediately, and then maybe do more later. But wouldn't that be a comfort to these families to know that although they lost their babies, their little angels, their precious darlings gone to heaven, that something would come of it to prevent this from happening to others. I always wondered in the Bible when Christ says: Suffer little children, and come unto me. Suffer little children, and come unto me. I guess it was an interpretation of the word ``suffer,'' allow little children to come unto me. But Christ was calling children to Him. He used the word ``suffer.'' These children, their lives are gone. Their families are suffering. The other children in the school, in the neighborhood, children who just have heard about this, they're suffering, too; suffering about what it feels like to go to school and not be sure you're safe, staying up at night being sleepless in terms of being scared of what could happen. Let's stop the suffering of our children, whether it's taking their lives, scaring them from going to school or keeping them up at night, giving them nightmares over their safety. These little children did suffer, and they did go on to heaven, a better place. It's the timing we have a problem with. Far too soon, far too many, for a reason that we can do something about. So I commend my colleagues for how they came together, led by the community coming together, the community of Newtown and Sandy Hook, such an inspiration to the country, so strong, so courageous, so sad. Let's show them that not only do we offer words, we offer action, and that action will take the form of passing this legislation to ban assault magazines, to do so in a timely fashion, so that in a non- untimely fashion we won't lose any more lives. Again, I want to commend the President for his beautiful words, mostly to the families last night and to the community, and the source of strength and inspiration he was. He challenged us to act. Let me just say it again: ``We can't tolerate this any more,'' he said. ``These tragedies must end; and to end them, we must change.'' Thank you, Mr. Murphy, for your leadership.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague in speaking about how sad we are in the passing of Senator Daniel Inouye. His passing marks the end of an era but the beginning of a great future built on the legacy he brought to the Congress. For the people of Hawaii and the country, he was a public servant from start to finish. He was a war hero, earning a Medal of Honor for his actions on the battlefields of World War II before his State was even admitted to the Union. And imagine, of Japanese American heritage; at a time when Japanese Americans were in camps, he was fighting for the freedom that they were not enjoying. He is a true patriot. He was Hawaii's first Representative in the House, a source of great pride for all Members past and present that we could call him colleague. Senator Inouye was a patriarch of Hawaii, and all Hawaiians will long remember his unyielding devotion to the economic vitality, progress, and success of his beloved home State. Senator Inouye led a life of principle, passion, service, and sacrifice. He was the highest ranking Asian American in our country, and he was for a long time. His story--as an Asian American who lived the American Dream, a soldier who served with bravery and courage, an elected Representative who served with dignity--reflects the best of America. We only hope it is a comfort to his wife, Irene; his son, Ken, and the entire Inouye family; and his many, many friends that so many share in their grief at this sad time. I want to praise him personally but also bring words of comfort to his family from my constituents in California who considered him a very, very special leader in our country. Pelosi Statement on the Passing of Senator Daniel Inouye Washington, D.C.--Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement tonight on the passing of longtime Hawaii Senator and the Senate's President Pro-Tempore Daniel Inouye: ``Senator Daniel Inouye's passing marks the end of an era-- for the people of Hawaii, the country, and the United States Senate. He was a public servant from start to finish. He was a war hero--earning a Medal of Honor for his actions on the battlefields of World War II before his state was even admitted to the union. He was Hawaii's first Representative in the House, a source of great pride to all Members, past and present. ``Senator Inouye was a patriarch of Hawaii, and all Hawaiians will long remember his unyielding devotion to the economic vitality, progress, and success of his beloved home state. He was the second-longest serving Senator in American history, and his fellow Americans will long remember his leadership in protecting our men and women in uniform, strengthening our national security, reaching across the aisle, and investing in a future of prosperity for all. By his actions, he stood firm for the independence of the Congress, the strength of our democracy, and the values of the American people. ``Senator Inouye led a life of principle, passion, service, and sacrifice. He was the highest ranking Asian American in our country. His story--as an Asian American who lived the American Dream, a soldier who served with bravery and courage, an elected representative who served with dignity-- reflects the best of America. We only hope it is a comfort to his wife Irene, his son Ken, and the entire Inouye family that so many share in their grief at this sad time.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Thank you very much, Ranking Member. Mr. Speaker, why did I sort of smell smoke when I heard this debate? It's reminiscent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. The American people are waiting for us to get the job done here, not to make a myriad of excuses about why stuff hasn't been done. You're bringing up a rule that says we should have a suspension authority? Let's bring the middle-income tax cut up under suspension. I believe--and I am willing to take the chance--that this House would give over two-thirds of a vote to the middle-income tax cut. Do I detect your smirk to mean that you don't think Republicans will vote for a middle-income tax cut, Mr. Sessions? Should I take it to mean that you will continue to hold middle-income tax cuts hostage, giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country? The unfairness of it is appalling. The fact that it increases the deficit is disgraceful, and that it does not create jobs is a big mistake for us to make. What we are asking for in this rule is to say ``no'' to the previous question so that we can take up a rule that says that we cannot leave here until we and unless we pass the middle-income tax cut, whatever else happens on a whole myriad of other issues that relate to the cliff. This matters, what happens here. It matters that we get the job done. It is relevant to the lives of the American people. As we gather here--we, a country of great family tradition, of family values, of commitment to faith, faith in ourselves, our families and our God, our country--we are away from home while people are lighting a Menorah candle, a Chanukah candle, while people are trimming trees and the rest of that. Okay, we're here to do our job. But we hear from the Republican side that they might not be ready to relieve the pain and curiosity that American families have about whether we are going to get this done. They are going to put this off until the very last minute, as to whether the markets will have confidence on how to grow the economy and create jobs and remove all doubt--remove all doubt in the full faith and credit in the United States of America. Every time you come to this floor, it's an existential question: Why are we here? We are here to do the people's work. Let's sit down, get it done, and move forward, instead of filling the agenda, however worthy some of those initiatives may be; instead of, not along with, passing a middle-income tax cut. This is also reminiscent of a year ago. The President proposed, the Senate Democrats and Republicans voted for the payroll tax holiday. The Republicans in the House resisted, painted themselves into a corner until they had no choice. The issue had been made too hot for them to handle, and they finally had to come around to supporting the payroll tax holiday. And here we are again. One hundred percent of the American people will receive a tax cut when we pass the middle-income tax cut. The wealthiest people in our country will receive a tax cut up to their income of $250,000. We're asking them to pay a little bit more for what they make over $250,000 a year to help reduce the deficit, to help grow the economy. Grow the economy. That growth is what is essential. If you want to reduce the deficit, create jobs. So why aren't we doing that? Why are we just having all this subterfuge and this, that, and the other thing? Why are we being told to make a reservation on Christmas Eve and one on the day after Christmas to come back. Is there not an appreciation for the Jewish holidays, the Christmas holidays, Kwanzaa, all the other things that families come together around, bonding rituals important to the strength of our society? Do we not care about that? Well, the American people do. And they want to shop for it. They want to have family dinners and they want to exchange gifts, as is the tradition. But they really don't know if they're going to be able to pay the bill in January for their purchases in December. The President has been very clear: Democrats have agreed to $1.6 trillion in cuts, much of it voted on--all of it voted on already either in the Budget Control Act or in other actions taken by this Congress in the course of this Congress. We have already taken a savings of over a trillion dollars, redirected savings in Medicare to prolong its life and to increase benefits. That would be $700 billion in the Affordable Care Act and now another $400 billion or such in the President's budget. We're committed to that. Where are the tax cuts? Where are the tax cuts for the middle class that would inject demand into the economy and would therefore create jobs and create growth? Where are the revenues that we would get if we did that and then had the additional participation of those who make over $250,000? Where is the revenue that the Republicans are willing to bring to the table? All we've seen from them is a letter. All we've heard from them is that they don't want to tax the rich. All we know is that the public is very much on board with everyone in our country paying his or her fair share. And so this rule today that says give us authority to have other bills brought to the floor, well, if one of those bills is the middle- income tax cut, we're happy with that. But if that isn't the plan, then I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question because that will then enable us to bring a rule to the floor which calls for bringing forth the middle-income tax cut before we leave here. Again, we support the President and his proposal, which is fair, which reduces the deficit, which creates jobs, and which will work for the American people.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank you for yielding, Mr. Miller. I know that we have a time limitation so I will begin by associating myself with the remarks of Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, who spoke so beautifully and knowledgeably about our colleagues from California who are leaving. I rise today to thank all my colleagues who are our friends and our partners from the great State of California. The Members we honor in this Special Order demonstrate the extraordinary diversity of our great Golden State. They hale from northern and southern California, from the Bay Area to the greater Los Angeles area to San Diego. They bring California's wide range of interests and aspirations to the floor of the House every day. Working side by side with the entire California delegation, their service has strengthened the Golden State. The commitment of our departing Members has strengthened the Congress. Their achievements have advanced the character of our country. Each of these Members has brought a unique voice to the table. Yet each shares the same core values: a devotion to public service, a dedication to opportunity, a belief and a promise of America. Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey spent her career fighting to improve the education of our children, the economic security of their families, and the protection of our workers, as well as our coastline, as Congresswoman Eshoo mentioned. With her departure--I won't say retirement, because she is not a retiring person--the Bay Area loses a powerful advocate in Congress and the Nation loses a tireless progressive leader. It was, I think, Mr. Miller said 400 times that Lynn Woolsey came to the floor to speak against our involvement in the war in Iraq. Thank you, Congresswoman Woolsey. So it's about the patriotism of this Congress and of the participation as patriots of our colleagues from California, whether it's the education of our children, whether it's the health of our people, as demonstrated by Congressman Pete Stark. We all owe you, Pete Stark, a great debt of gratitude. He has been a fixture in the fight to build and strengthen the pillars of health and economic security for the American people. From his seat on the Ways and Means Committee, to the House floor, he always remained a fierce fighter for Medicare and a passionate advocate for the Affordable Care Act because he believes that health care is a right for all Americans, not a privilege just for the few. His legacy will live on in stronger support for the well-being of our seniors, our families, and our middle class. I hope it is a source of pride--I know it is to your family--that so many of your colleagues respect you so much and honor your leadership and service here. As has been mentioned, Congressman Filner left us. He is already the mayor of San Diego. He was a Freedom Rider, who fought for civil rights and equality. He was a Representative of San Diego, who never wavered in support of our veterans, and he served as the chair of that committee. We wish him well as mayor of San Diego. Congresswoman Richardson has dedicated her time in Congress to rebuilding our infrastructure, advancing the dream of high-speed rail, securing our borders, and protecting our environment. We wish her well as she goes forward. Congressman Berman--we go from B to W, Berman to Woolsey, and every wonderful thing in between. Congressman Berman's imprint can be found on legislation across the broad spectrum of issues before the House. Many of us knew him long before he came to Congress, knew of his work, working with the farmworkers, working in labor law to protect the rights of workers. In two particular areas, his expertise is simply unsurpassed. He is a true expert on international relations, a past chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, ranking member now; a champion of aid to Israel; the fight against HIV/AIDS; and the toughest Iran sanctions in the history of our country. He is a senior member of the Judiciary Committee who, it is safe to say, understands intellectual property, understands its importance. It is even mentioned in our Constitution. He understands the challenges and the opportunities it presents. In every venue and every arena, he has been a proud advocate for Los Angeles and California, a cherished leader for the entire House. Joe Baca is a lifelong public servant. He was a paratrooper in the U.S. Army's 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions. He served in the California State Legislature. In Congress, he made his mark in standing firm against harmful anti-immigrant measures and in leading the effort to expand food stamps and nutrition assistance for those who need it most. That is such a simple sentence, but it's fraught with meaning. He put a lot of work and leadership into the farm bill. Joe Baca came from humble beginnings, yet his accomplishments are truly significant. The list goes on and on of our colleagues that Congresswoman Eshoo mentioned. For all of these Members, public service has been a calling, a cause, and a core facet of their character. California has been proud to have them as our Representatives in Congress. For those of us who served with them, it is an honor for each of us to call you ``colleague''; for some of us a very, very special honor to be considered your friend. We all wish each of you much success in the years ahead. We look forward to continuing our work together on behalf of our great Golden State of California. Your service in Congress added to the luster of our Golden State. Thank you, and congratulations.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor very pleased that our Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner, has brought the discussion of our fiscal challenges to this floor. Indeed, it is long overdue. We have been calling upon the Speaker to bring forth a middle-income tax cut now for a very long time--in fact, since last summer when it passed the United States Senate. The President stands ready and poised with his pen to sign it. Democrats in the House have a discharge petition to bring that bill to the floor. What stands in the way is an act on the part of the Republican majority to bring a middle-income tax cut to the floor of the House, which across the country has almost universal support and which I think in this body, given the right to vote for it, would have overwhelming support. Up until now, everybody in the country--in fact, in the world--has been talking about what's going to happen--those who pay attention to such matters--what's going to happen in the budget debate in the Congress and with the President. At last, that subject comes to the floor. What I would do to respond to what the Speaker has said, though, is to set the record straight. The fact is that the President has, and Democrats agree with him, agreed to around $1.6 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act and other acts of Congress in this particular Congress, $1.6 trillion in cuts. Where are the cuts? They're in bills that you, Mr. Speaker, have voted for. Secondly, on the issue of the entitlements with the Affordable Care Act and with legislation, suggestions and provisions in the President's budget, it amounts to over $1 trillion in savings in Medicare, over $1 trillion in savings which have been redirected to prolonging the life of Medicare, making it stronger for nearly a decade while increasing benefits for our seniors and those who depend on Medicare--not reducing but increasing benefits. There's been a massive misrepresentation about what that is, so I want to set the record straight. So in terms of spending cuts, we are on the record having voted for about $1.6 trillion. In terms of entitlement reform, there is over $1 trillion already and more savings to be gained in further discussions on the subject by a strong down payment. What is missing are two elements that the President has put forth in his budget: growth, investments in infrastructure--yes, the President has called for investments in infrastructure to build the infrastructure of America and to create jobs to grow our economy; and, where are the revenues? Where are the revenues? Regardless of the cuts or the changes in entitlements, more is demanded in terms of what seniors would have to pay into Medicare and at what age that would happen, while the Republicans refuse to touch one hair on the head of the wealthiest people in our country. The public overwhelmingly, 2-1, supports the President's initiative for extending the middle-income tax cuts whereby 100 percent--100 percent--of U.S. taxpayers get a tax cut. Above 250--the people making more than $250,000 a year would be asked to pay a little more to contribute to the fiscal soundness of our country, to pay our bills, the defense of our country, the support of our troops, the pillars of security for our seniors, the education of our children and the safety of our neighborhoods. This is just asking them to pay a little bit more while they continue to get the same tax cut that everyone does. So it is 100 percent of the American people get a tax cut, the upper 2 percent are asked to pay a little bit more. So I thank the Speaker for finally at least uttering the words on the floor of the House about what the decisions are that need to be made. Again, we have committed to the cuts, we have acted upon the entitlements, the President has more in his budget, all of this would be a down payment for as we go forward into the next session of Congress to talk about tax simplification and fairness, how we can perhaps lower rates while plugging up loopholes and having a Tax Code that encourages growth in our economy. But that is a longer discussion as we address the issue of how we strengthen our entitlements not by diminishing benefits but by getting more for what we are spending. So if it's Social Security, any changes in Social Security should be left to strengthen Social Security. If it's Medicare, any changes should be there to strengthen Medicare, not to underwrite and subsidize tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country. So, again, I welcome the Speaker's statement that he wants to solve the problem. The President has put forth his budget, which has his initiative in it. He has said that he's willing to make some changes. But it's really important that any changes not hurt the middle class. It comes right down to this. Again, I've said, it's not about the price of the high-end tax cut, it's about the money that it generates. You can find the money another way at the high end. Let's see what that discussion is. But it is not to burden the middle income in order to have bigger tax cuts at the high end. Those high-end tax cuts only increase the deficit. They have not created jobs. It's simply unfair, and it doesn't work. So hopefully the clock is ticking, we're getting closer to the holidays, and that means closer to the end of the year, which is fraught with meaning in terms of time and the rest of this. I don't think there's any reason for us not to come to the table to make an agreement to give confidence to consumers in this holiday season and to the markets at their end of year decisions so that we will have the growth--the growth, the jobs that produce revenue. That approach is the way to create jobs to reduce the deficit. We want to fix the deficit, grow the economy, and do so in a way that makes responsible cuts and strong investments for our seniors and the pillars of economic security for them and for their family. It is not a time to inject even more uncertainty into the lives of the American people and the economy of our country--and what that means globally. It simply isn't the time. Many of these ideas are bad at any time, but they're particularly harmful at this time. So, again, I thank the Speaker for bringing the issue finally to the floor of the House of Representatives. I look forward to how we can move quickly because time is of the essence, and every day that we can remove all doubt about the full faith and credit of the United States of America, our investments in the future, our creation of jobs and our respect and support for the economic and health security of our seniors, every day we can do that, but more quickly, is a good day.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay final tribute to a prominent San Francisco businessman, philanthropist, and civic leader: Walter Newman. San Francisco has been blessed by Walter's life, vision, leadership, and generosity. His legacy will leave an everlasting impact on our city. Walter Newman was a third generation Californian, a dedicated patriot, and a proud American. He served our country as an Army infantry captain during World War II. He earned a Purple Heart for wounds sustained while leading his troops into Normandy. He earned the gratitude and accolades of the people of France, the recipient of that country's highest civilian honor, the Chevalier of the National Order of the Legion of Honor. Mr. Newman continued his service in our beloved hometown of San Francisco. As head of the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Commission, he helped lead the effort to develop major civic projects ranging from the Transamerica Pyramid to Mission Bay. As president of the San Francisco Fine Arts Museum, he was instrumental in bringing King Tut artifacts to San Francisco as one of our first great art exhibitions. He played a vital role in the establishment of University High School in San Francisco. He was a member of the Board of Governors of the University of California, San Francisco; a member of the UCSF Conflict of Interest Committee; and a member of the board of the San Francisco General Hospital Foundation. In a true reflection of his dedication to his fellow veterans, he served on the Board of Directors of NCIRE--The Veterans Health Research Institute, a national leader in advancing veterans' health research based in San Francisco. He helped establish a veterans' resource center at the City College of San Francisco. It is a testament to Mr. Newman's longstanding dedication to San Francisco and our veterans that UCSF will soon have a 42,000-square-foot Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Mission Bay. Walter will be remembered for his positive attitude and compassion, for his unyielding commitment to the education of our children and the health of our people, for his unending devotion to the well-being of our veterans. He will be remembered for his exemplary will and exceptional values-- for the way he inspired others to action, even in moments of his own grief. Indeed, when his son Bob tragically passed away from a malignant brain tumor, Walter responded in characteristic fashion. At a time when so many others would, understandably, turn inward with grief, he honored his son's memory by co-founding and becoming President of the National Brain Tumor Foundation--an organization that assists thousands of people suffering from brain cancer. A cherished civic leader. A proud San Franciscan. A champion for our city, our state, and our country. This is how we will all remember Walter Newman. Yet, as devoted as he was to civic and cultural causes in San Francisco, he was above all devoted to his beloved wife Ellen, his sons Walter Jr. and John, and brother-in-law Jerry. I hope it is a comfort to his family and loved ones that so many join them in mourning his passing.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 2012 World Series Champions, the San Francisco Giants. On October 28, 2012, the Giants defeated the Detroit Tigers by a score of four to three in game four to sweep the World Series, winning the franchise's second championship since the team moved to San Francisco from New York in 1958. By their tremendous victory, our Giants once again made us the proudest city in baseball. This year, the Giants showed tenacity, heart, and teamwork on their path to victory. They unleashed their arsenal of reliable starting pitching, stellar relief pitching, heroic defense, and powerful hitting to outlast their rivals in the fiercely contested National League Western Division. Their performance was a portrait of grit and good sportsmanship from the first pitch through the last, and we celebrate them for their excellence on and off the field. There is no one superstar on the Giants' roster; they are a band of brothers who ``play for the name on the front of their jerseys, not the name on the back.'' Congratulations to all 25 players on the playoff roster, including World Series Most Valuable Player Pablo Sandoval, who demonstrated the true meaning of ``Panda Power'' to the rest of the country, and National League Most Valuable Player Buster Posey, as well as: Jeremy Affeldt, Madison Bumgarner, Matt Cain, Santiago Casilla, Tim Lincecum, Javier Lopez, Guillermo Mota, George Kontos, Sergio Romo, Barry Zito, Ryan Vogelsong, Marco Scutaro, Brandon Crawford, Gregor Blanco, Aubrey Huff, Brandon Belt, Hunter Pence, Angel Pagan, Hector Sanchez, Jose Mijares, Joaquin Arias, Ryan Theriot, and Xavier Nady. This year's extraordinary win required a full team effort, from the field to the front office. While the players poured their hearts out on the diamond, the thanks and gratitude of all Giants fans also goes to the team's Chief Executive Officer Larry Baer, General Manager Brian Sabean, and Manager Bruce Bochy. Through their commitment, strategy, guidance, and dedication, the 2012 San Francisco Giants emerged as the 2012 World Series champions. The San Francisco community united in support behind their team and an estimated one million fans turned out to celebrate their victory in a parade full of past and present San Francisco baseball legends. Congratulations to the passionate and devoted Giants fans in northern California, across the country, and around the world for their unrelenting support of the Giants.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, in the course of the election the President made it very clear that he was supporting the extension of the middle income tax cut and everyone, 100 percent of the American people, would benefit from it--100 percent of taxpayers, small businesses, wage earners, and the rest. Republicans are saying that rather than passing that, they want to hold it hostage to giving an additional tax cut to people making over $250,000 a year. That's not negotiating; that's hostage-taking. So today on the floor of the House, the Democrats have proposed a discharge petition which, if it receives 218 signatures, that's only a couple dozen Republicans joining the Democrats, it would automatically come to the floor and I predict would receive overwhelming support of the House of Representatives. The American people want us to work together. We are in agreement on this subject. Why--why, my Republican colleagues--can we not vote on something where we have agreement, where we have fairness that will work to create jobs, to reduce the deficit and will again have fairness. This is the heart of the matter that is holding us here. As the public watches--what is this about--this is about the $250,000 line that the President said in the campaign that he would honor and that this legislation today brings to bear. I urge my colleagues, out of 435 Members of the House, we only need a couple dozen Republicans to sign the discharge petition. Each one of them holds the key to a $2,000 tax cut for the middle class. Either sign the petition, urge the Speaker to bring the bill to the floor, or explain to your constituents why you do not want them to have this $2,000 tax break for 100 percent of the American people. Please sign the discharge petition. Let's get this done this week. We could bring this bill up under unanimous consent. The message would be clear to the American people: we heard you in the campaign. Be fair, do something that works, work together. This gives us that opportunity.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank Speaker Boehner for his leadership and cooperation in bringing this legislation to the floor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Tip O'Neill said the Speaker of the House was Millie, his wife. I had the privilege of serving in the office that Tip O'Neill had when he was Speaker of the House and having in my possession the gavel that was given to Speaker O'Neill when he became the leader--not yet the Speaker. It's Waterford, Mr. Speaker, so you could only use it one time, and perhaps he would use it today. But you made this possible. All of us who admire and love Tip O'Neill are grateful to you for that. So I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and for your very fine words. Two weeks ago, Members of Congress joined members of the O'Neill family and many others to plant a tree in honor of the life of Speaker Tip O'Neill. Today we honor Tip again by passing a resolution to inscribe his name on a Federal building, a lasting tribute to his service and leadership to the State of Massachusetts, to the House of Representatives, and his leadership for all Americans. I thank again Speaker Boehner for leading this bipartisan effort to remember the great Tip O'Neill together on the floor of the House, where Tip once wielded the Speaker's gavel with courage, dignity, and grace. And I thank you, Mr. Capuano, for joining the committee to bring this to the floor of the House. You serve in the same district that Tip O'Neill did. What an honor. I serve in the office that he had. What an honor. It is fitting that the Tip O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building will stand alongside the office building named for Tip's dear friend, colleague, and partner in public service, former President and House Minority Leader, Gerald Ford. As the Speaker indicated, they will be neighbors. Indeed, reflecting on their long partnership, President Ford once said: Tip O'Neill is an outstanding political leader and patriot who always carried the torch for the Congress and the American people. Carrying the torch. The statement captured the essence of Tip's success: his extraordinary leadership; his unflinching patriotism; his belief in the common good; his devotion to the unending fight to ``form a more perfect union.'' Yes, Mr. President Ford, Tip carried this torch for all who believed that the purpose of politics is to improve the lives of others. Tip carried the torch for the underdog, for the person on the street, for the family struggling to pay the bills. He carried the torch of opportunity and equality into every budget negotiation, every legislative battle, every bipartisan agreement. Tip was the personal manifestation of the American Dream, and he carried the torch for anyone else who strived to achieve it. For Tip, standing on principle was not about political gain; it was about fighting for the voiceless and for the aspirations of the middle class. For Tip, the effort to reform and save Social Security was not about figures on a page; it was about seniors fighting to make ends meet. That's why we were so proud of what he did with President Reagan to prolong the life of Social Security. For Tip, floor debates were not about abstract numbers; they were about people and the consequences of a policy to their lives. Those were the values that enabled Tip O'Neill to leave his giant footprint on the course of American history. This is the spirit that made him a legend, that allowed him to help the middle class thrive, that ensured his actions would strengthen the character of our country, in his time and for future generations. By his leadership and his patriotism, Tip O'Neill was a proud champion of his district, his State, and our Nation. With his gavel in hand, he was a giant of the Congress. With his record of progress, he was a bona fide American hero. By adding his name to a Federal building in sight of the Capitol he loved, we all carry the torch of the legacy of Tip O'Neill. I hope that we have not the close vote that would have been fun maybe at that time, but a unanimous vote that shows that we share Tip's values and take pride in his leadership as he stands as a neighbor to President Gerald Ford.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the service and sacrifice of MSG Marvin Tasby on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Air Force. For the last 4 years, Master Sergeant Tasby has served the Air Force and our Nation as a legislative liaison here in Congress. Master Sergeant Tasby is affectionately known to many of us in Congress as ``Taz.'' For 26 years, the United States Air Force, and indeed the entire Nation, has benefitted from Taz's talents, experience, and devotion. As we honor Taz, we also honor all of those who wear our Nation's uniform. When our airmen and airwomen serve, their families serve as well. Today in paying tribute to Master Sergeant Tasby we also express our gratitude to his wife Katrina, his sons Jordan and Justin, and his mother Jessie. After enlisting in the Air Force in 1986 in Shreveport, Louisiana, Taz served across the United States and around the world. He has worked in the Office of the Air Force Reserve and served as a member of the 93rd Bomb Squadron and the 140th Fighter Wing. A key part of Taz's latest posting, as a legislative liaison, has been escorting Members of Congress around the world. Indeed, Taz has served as part of 50 fact-finding missions to 62 countries around the globe. In doing so, he has earned the respect of Members and staff. He is known around the world by State Department officials and foreign nationals. Personally, I've been proud to have Taz by my side in 16 countries-- from Afghanistan to the United Kingdom, many of them more than once. We've been together in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and North America. We've gone into war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq and we've travelled to meet with the heads of parliaments from around the world. Taz spends countless hours planning every detail of a trip and ensuring logistics are executed perfectly. I've seen firsthand Taz's resourcefulness, attention to detail, and overall commitment to excellence. Taz has been rightly honored with a number of medals throughout his 26 year career. These include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Air Force Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Kosovo Campaign Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. The Air Force song is a tribute to those, as it says, ``who love the vastness of the sky.'' When we sing that song, four times we proclaim, ``Nothing will stop the Air Force!'' Those words are true about the Air Force because of our airmen and airwomen. They are true because of people like MSG Marvin Tasby.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Thank you very much, Mr. Hoyer. I appreciate your yielding and your leadership in bringing us together on the floor of the House. We are after-hours, and it is only 12:40, but it's after- hours on a Friday afternoon. That is in the context that we left here on August 3. We're not due back until November 14, and yet we have had only 8 legislative days of work in that period of time. I thank you for calling that dereliction of duty to the attention of the American people because we have work to do. It's not as if our work is finished. As you have indicated, there is critical legislation that is expiring that has passed even in the Senate; yet Republicans have blocked the vote in the House, whether it's middle income tax relief, postal reform, violence against women, the farm bill and then, of course, initiatives proposed by President Obama to create jobs for our economy. I was so pleased to hear what our colleague, Congresswoman Schwartz, had to say about Medicare, because our names are all on the ballot in this year's election. But what is really at stake is Medicare. Medicare, Medicare, Medicare. As you said, Mr. Hoyer, they offered nothing except to raise costs to seniors for getting less as they phase out Medicare. I wanted to talk about another subject because it's a larger issue as I hear this question bandied about. You hear people say, Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? The Republicans have the nerve to pose that question that when you look back to 4 years ago, this very week, Mr. Speaker, you would know that we are indeed fundamentally and unquestionably better off as a country today. This week, 4 years ago, September 18 to be exact, but this week, there was a meeting in my office when I was Speaker of the Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and of the Senate gathered together to hear a report from the administration that was very alarming. Mind you, September 18, 2008, the Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, described for us a financial system in imminent danger of total collapse. Chairman Bernanke at that same meeting, the chairman of the Fed, told us if we did not act immediately, we would not have an economy by Monday. This was a Thursday evening. You remember, Mr. Hoyer. You were there. If we do not act immediately, we will not have an economy by Monday. How on Earth can people who perpetrated that situation on our country have the nerve to turn around and ask that question? At the end of the meeting, we all went out in a bipartisan way and spoke to the press. I said at the time, Time is of the essence and that Congress would act. I was trying to lift confidence in our financial situation. Despite there being a Presidential election 7 weeks away at that time, it was no time for partisanship. The crisis demanded that Democrats and Republicans work with President Bush to rescue our economy from depression or, as Chairman Bernanke said, from our not having an economy 4 days later. In the days ahead, our country confronted the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The costs were staggering: more than $8 trillion lost in household wealth, more than 8 million jobs lost, and more than 4 million families losing their homes to foreclosure. Nonetheless, the Democrats voted with President Bush to restore confidence in our markets, and the Republicans even walked away from their own President. In the 2 years after that September 18 meeting, we continued to take actions to reduce spending and to address what was inevitable from the policies of the 8 years previous to the November 2008 election. When we took the majority and with President Obama in office, we took action to reduce spending, create jobs, keep people in their homes, and passed Dodd-Frank, the toughest Wall Street reforms in generations. With it-- the most historic for the first time--protections for American consumers in that bill. All of it was fought vigorously against by the Republicans. Now we have President Obama, and we have a Republican Congress. Under President Obama's leadership, we have added private sector jobs for 30 straight months, compared to losing 700,000 jobs a month as he entered office; the auto industry, which was facing extinction, and the loss of over 1 million jobs in that industry is again competitive and hiring and thriving; the Dow Jones average, which is one reflection of the security of tens of millions of American investors and pension funds, has already doubled; and housing prices are slowly rising again. We need much more progress there. Imagine, from that time the Dow Jones has doubled. We still have work to do to continue the American recovery. If the Republicans had cooperated at all with President Obama in the last 2 years, we would be much farther down the road to recovery. We cooperated with President Bush; but they would not offer an ounce of cooperation to President Obama, and our economy has paid the price. We have reaped the benefits of some of what happened in the 2 years when we were in the majority and President Obama was in the first 2 years of his term. But so much more could have been done with some cooperation from the Republicans. We get back to the question: Are we better off this week in September than we were this week 4 years ago? You be the judge. I know America's families are hurting. We want to do more to create jobs, et cetera, and we have to have bipartisan cooperation to do that. The Republicans have resisted that. From that standpoint, yes, we can do better. But from the standpoint of this country when there was a financial crisis, we were on the verge of a total collapse where the chairman of the Fed told us that if we did not act immediately, we wouldn't have an economy by Monday. Yes, we are fundamentally as a country better off and, therefore, the prospects for the future are better for all of America's families, and that's what we are here to work on, the future. Too bad our Republican colleagues have cut and run from town, but we stand ready to welcome them back to work in a bipartisan way to make concessions to get the job done for the American people. I thank you, Mr. Hoyer, for giving us all the opportunity to express our views on the subject today.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. As we come to the floor this afternoon to talk about this sequester issue, the clock is ticking. Every moment we delay in dealing with the budget issue is a moment of time that does not increase confidence in our economy, that does not bring more certainty to our economic situation, and that does not reduce the deficit. I heard the previous speaker say that this legislation that is on the floor would end sequestration. It does not. That is one of the major differences between it and the Democratic proposal put forth by Mr. Van Hollen. Unfortunately, afraid of debate on the floor, the Republicans on the Rules Committee did not allow Mr. Van Hollen's proposal to come to the floor today so that we could have a vote on it; but even with that, we can have a debate on it. The debate is about fairness. It's about balance. It's about living up to our responsibilities. It's about saying, yes, we all have to compromise--there will be cuts; we need revenue; we want growth. That's what Mr. Van Hollen's proposal does. It does, indeed, replace the sequestration. It is a better plan. It actually does end sequestration, as I mentioned, through a mix of cuts and revenues. The reason we have a problem here is that our Republican colleagues have refused to have one red cent from the wealthiest people in our country contribute to resolving this fiscal crisis, this budget crisis--not one red cent. If they cared as much about defense as they say, 1 year ago they would have agreed to a plan with fairness and balance, where we would have had growth on the table, making decisions about revenue and about cuts to produce growth and not getting into a situation that called for across-the-board cuts in defense and in our domestic budget. This is really silly. It's really silly. It's not serious. It's a charade, this bill that they have on the floor today. It just keeps making matters worse as the clock keeps ticking. So I urge my colleagues to reject this mirage of a bill that poses as a suggestion and to support, instead, ideas that are being advanced by Mr. Van Hollen. I don't like everything about it. We've cut over $1 trillion. That's how we got through last year--all cuts, no revenue. You need only see how we differ by just looking at the Ryan-Romney Republican budget. Their blueprint says we're going to end Medicare; we're going to make seniors pay $6,000 more as we end Medicare; and we're going to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country. That's not fair and that's not balanced, but that is what would happen if the Republican bill were to become law. It would enact the Ryan bill. So I urge my colleagues to think very seriously about this, because people sent us here to find solutions. We must resolve this. When the Speaker of the House says, I'm not confident we can do this, we are confident we can do anything we set our minds to, and we certainly have to be confident that we can honor our responsibilities to the American people. We all have to go to the table and be willing to yield, willing to compromise. We had to do it with President Bush, Senior, and with President Bush on his recovery package for our country. Democrats cooperated with both of those Presidents when we were in the majority. Why is it that the Republicans in the House see no reason to compromise even at the risk of the full faith and credit of the United States of America? even at the expense of the health of our economy? even at the expense of jobs for the American people? Vote ``no'' on this mirage. Support what Mr. Van Hollen is putting forth. Let's get moving because the clock is ticking.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, this Republican majority is prepared to adjourn the House of Representatives to leave for the August district work period without accomplishing what the American people have sent us here to do. They want us to create jobs. They want us to reduce the deficit, and they want us to give a middle-income tax cut, which the President has suggested and the American people overwhelmingly support. Instead, we have no jobs agenda, no tax cuts for the middle class, no farm bill, no Violence Against Women Act, no cybersecurity strategy, no balanced, bipartisan plan to prevent the sequester. The only thing the Republicans have done is to increase the uncertainty that threatens another debt crisis and undermines our economic growth. Now they want to head out of town to campaign, when Congress should stay in session to address the most pressing challenges facing our Nation: job creation, growth in our economy, and strengthening the middle class. Mr. Speaker, Democrats want us to get our job done. When we go home to meet with our constituents, we want to say what we have accomplished and what results we can bring that have been worked out in a fair, bipartisan, balanced way. In spite of this, the Republican obstruction at every turn is preventing that. Let's get to work. Let's do the job our constituents elected us to do: to create jobs with them and to relieve the uncertainty in their lives.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also thank him for his legislation on the floor today, to strengthen the backbone of our democracy, the great American middle class. Today we can do just that by passing President Obama's middle-income tax cut, which is on the floor today as the Levin substitute. It has already passed the Senate and could be signed into law by the President before the weekend. We have an opportunity. We have an opportunity to give a tax cut to 100 percent of the American people. We have an opportunity to relieve some of the uncertainty that exists in our economy as to how we are going to pay the bills and how America's working families are going to pay the bills. We have an opportunity for fairness, which is an all-American value, for fairness for our families, for our businesses, and for our budget. We must not--as some people always accuse Congress of doing--miss an opportunity. We have to take advantage of the opportunity that is here today. The bill provides for fairness for the middle class and certainty, as I mentioned. The Republican alternative says not only do we want to give 100 percent of the American people a tax cut; we want to give a bigger and better tax cut to people making over $250,000 a year ,2 percent of the American people. In order to do that, we greatly increase the deficit which would incur borrowing from other countries, including China. And to top it all off, in order to give a tax cut to the wealthiest people in our country, we have to increase taxes for the middle class in order to pay for that. If you make over $1 million a year, the Republican tax proposal will give you a tax cut of $160,000 on average. And on average, America's middle-income families would have to pay $1,000 more in taxes. You know, we work for the American people. You are our bosses. So as our bosses, what would you instruct us to do when it comes to reducing the deficit, giving a tax cut to 100 percent of the American people, which will inject demand into the economy and therefore create jobs. So we are reducing the deficit. We're creating jobs, and we're having fairness as a principle as to how we go forward. Make no mistake, by refusing to vote for the Senate-passed bill, House Republicans are giving more tax breaks to the richest 2 percent, tax breaks they don't need and we can't afford. At the same time they cut taxes for the rich, as I said, they would raise an average of $1,000 on 25 million American families, families who rely on that money for day-to-day needs to pay their bills. That isn't fair, and Democrats will fight to prevent these tax increases on middle-income families in order to give a tax break to the wealthiest people in our country. Today is a day when we can end some uncertainty. People talk about the cliff. We are going to go over the cliff come January. Let's not even go anywhere near the edge of that cliff. Let's pass this bill today. It will save just under $1 trillion because we're not giving those tax cuts to the high end. That is almost all the money that is needed to avoid the sequestration come January. So again, we are addressing the uncertainty not only in the lives of the American people, but in the life of our economy. Or today is the day that Republicans will continue to hold the middle class hostage to tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country. I urge my colleagues to join Mr. Levin, join the President of the United States, join all of us. There isn't a person in this room, in this body, I think, who doesn't support tax cuts for the middle class. Why can't we just do that, do what we can agree upon right now, tax cut by the weekend, alleviating uncertainty for our economy as we go forward, and then we can have a debate about what a Tax Code should look like that has fairness, simplification, and again keeps us competitive, innovative, and, number one, allows the private sector to create jobs. Again, jobs, jobs, jobs. We will reduce that deficit by having additional revenue, by creating growth, by addressing spending so we are investing in those initiatives that grow our economy. Pretty soon when we end this debate, it will be around the time when America's families will sit down for dinner at the kitchen table or wherever, and they will have these discussions about how they pay the bills, the bills to stay in their home or their apartment, wherever. Discussions on how they will pay for their children's education, how their pensions are affected by all of this. The list goes on and on. With one vote, we can alleviate that uncertainty. We're not going to eliminate it, but we can lessen it. We have that responsibility. Let's not miss an opportunity to do just that. So I thank you, Mr. Levin, for your leadership and members of the committee for all of your hard work.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Perlmutter for yielding, and I'm very sad to join my colleagues in expressing the deepest sympathies of the House of Representatives to the families and loved ones of the victims in Aurora, Colorado, and to the entire community as it grapples with its grief. My colleagues have spoken very movingly from the standpoint of faith; and, hopefully, that faith will be a comfort to those who are affected. As you know, Mr. Speaker, when we learned of this tragedy, the President ordered flags to be flown at half staff for 1 week to commemorate the tragedy that Aurora, these individual families, and our country had suffered. That was done as a mark of respect for the 12 innocent victims of the senseless violence and for all who were affected. Of the victims who were murdered, and that's just the word that day, the vast majority were very young people. The one, Gordon Cowden, was a father in his fifties--well, that seems young to me; the others were very young--whose last words to his daughters were to tell them he loved them. Each of them has a story that deserves to be told. Each was beloved. Each left home with a different expectation of what would happen that evening, and so did the rest of the country. Several died protecting their loved ones, including John Blunk, Alex Teves and Matt McQuinn. Alex Sullivan was about to celebrate his 1-year wedding anniversary, and that was the celebration, going out to the movies. A.J. Boik had just graduated from high school. Jessica Ghawi dreamed of being a sports journalist. Micayla Medek and Rebecca Wingo were pursuing their futures at community college. Two victims, Jesse Childress and John Larimer, were Active Duty military personnel. They signed up to risk their lives for our country to protect our freedom. Who could have ever thought that they would lose their lives going to the movies? And as a child, Veronica Moser will now forever be remembered as the 6-year-old. What a sad tragedy. Most of us here in this body are parents and grandparents, and in Steny's case, a great-grandparent, and every person knows the feeling of sending a child off to a movie with their friends, the excitement of an opening night, and then the worry when the minutes tick by and someone hasn't come home. It is with heavy hearts that we send our thoughts and prayers to the many grieving today, and we continue to pray--thank you for taking us down that path; we continue to pray for the healing of those who survived, both their physical pain and their emotional scars. That's probably the hardest. We send our gratitude to our first responders. Within minutes, when minutes counted, when seconds counted, they responded with bravery and with professionalism. In the words of this resolution, the Congress ``honors the resilience of the community of the City of Aurora and the State of Colorado in the face of such adversity.'' May you feel the support and love and prayers of our Nation. May those tragically taken from us be honored and remembered. May time heal our grief. I hope it is a comfort to those who are affected by this tragedy, who lost loved ones, or have injuries in their families, that so many people throughout the world mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time. General Leave

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I want to join my colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, in acknowledging that this weekend we will begin the International AIDS Conference, which will come to America with a fitting theme: ``Turning the Tide Together.'' It has a long history. In 1990, expert scientists and political officials from across the globe gathered in San Francisco, in my district, for the International AIDS Conference to turn our promise of leadership into progress. Since that time, however, the conference has never returned to an American venue for two decades. The organizers point to our longtime shameful travel ban on those with HIV/AIDS. Next week, when the conference assembles right here in our Nation's Capital, the world will see how far we've come. Together, we will commit to turning the tide, as the theme indicates, toward the next stage in our fight: fewer infections and a cure and an end to HIV/AIDS. Consider what this Congress has done: funding the Ryan White CARE Act, creating housing opportunities for people with HIV, and expanding access to Medicaid for people with HIV, but not full-blown AIDS. That's an early intervention. Also, increased investments in research, care, treatment, and intervention by more than half a billion dollars. And in response to the global challenge and the leadership of Congresswoman Barbara Lee, we have supported global solutions by increasing funds for bilateral AIDS efforts during the Clinton administration; making the first American contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria in 2000; and working with Presidents Bush and Obama to establish PEPFAR. I know that it is a great source of pride to President George W. Bush for the leadership he provided, the support he gave, and the pride I think he takes in PEPFAR--and we salute him for that. President Obama has continued that work, more than doubling the support for global health initiatives and doubling our investment in the Global Fund. These commitments and more have helped families in the United States and the villages of Africa and communities worldwide. These actions have saved lives, but there's much more to do. With the International AIDS Conference coming to Washington, DC, we have an opportunity to recommit ourselves to the cause of a world without HIV/ AIDS. That is the challenge. That is the goal. We can turn the tide together. After 25 years in Congress, little surprises me anymore; but one thing that does is that after all this time we still do not have a cure. But we're hopeful. And when the AIDS conference opens its doors next week, we must stand united in our pledge to discover a cure and raise an AIDS-free generation. Science is making progress. We have a moral obligation to support that. It has been done in a bipartisan way under President Bush's leadership, under President Clinton, and under President Obama. Hopefully, we can continue to do that. We can and we must work together to make HIV/AIDS a very, very sad memory and certainly not part of our future. I thank you, Congresswoman Lee, for your tremendous leadership locally and globally and in every way, and certainly in this Congress of the United States.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, more than 2 years ago, we put forth a vision for America's middle class to ensure health care would be not a privilege for a few but a right for all Americans. Today and yesterday--for the past 2 days--as they've done more than 30 times in this Congress, the Republicans are set to take away that right. Over the past 2 days, we have heard the talking points of the health insurance industry. They're trying to drown out the facts, and the facts are these: What is the takeaway from this debate? The takeaway is the protections House Republicans are voting to take away from America's families: Today, up to 17 million children have the right to health care coverage even if they have diabetes, asthma, leukemia, or any other preexisting medical condition. Put an ``X'' next to that. Republicans want to take away protections for children with preexisting conditions; Today, all young adults have the right to get insurance on their parents' policies. Republicans want to take away that right from America's students and young people. Where we have that coverage for young adults, put an ``X'' next to that; Today, 5.3 million seniors have saved $3.7 billion on their prescription drugs. Republicans want to take away prescription drug savings for seniors; Today, small business owners have used tax credits to help them afford insurance already for 2 million additional people, and the bill is not fully in effect. Republicans want to take away the tax credits for businesses to help their entrepreneurship and job creation; Today, nearly 13 million Americans are set to benefit from $1.1 billion in rebates from health insurance companies. Republicans want to take away those cost savings from America's families; Today, American women have free coverage. They have a right to free coverage for lifesaving preventative care like mammograms. Starting in August, women will gain free access to a full package of preventative services. No longer will a woman be a preexisting medical condition, but Republicans want to take away those protections from women and all Americans. Many across the country have heard our Republican colleagues claim that very few people are affected by the preexisting condition provision of the law. The fact is: The Republicans are wrong. The fact is--you be the judge--138 million Americans have preexisting medical conditions. I ask our friends on the other side of the aisle: Do you know anybody with breast cancer? with prostate cancer? with asthma? with diabetes? people with disabilities? The list goes on and on. With this bill that you have on the floor today, you will take away their rights to affordable coverage. That is why the American Cancer Society opposes this repeal effort and their ``13 million cancer patients and survivors who need access to adequate and affordable coverage.'' That's why they oppose this repeal effort, the American Cancer Society. Do any of you know the millions of Americans living with a disability? With this bill, you take away their rights to quality, affordable care. That's why Easter Seals wrote: Millions of parents of children with disabilities are breathing a huge sigh of relief knowing their children will not be dropped from their insurance. Do you know any parents of children with diabetes or asthma or childhood leukemia? Do you know any? With this bill, you will take away the rights of these children to affordable care throughout their lives. That's why the American Diabetes Association, on behalf of the nearly 26 million Americans with diabetes, urged us to oppose this bill in order to ``protect people with diabetes who for too long have been discriminated against because of their disease.'' My Republican colleagues are taking away patient protections for millions of Americans, protections you as Members of Congress already enjoy. I think that that's an undermining of fundamental fairness. If you repeal this bill, it means you keep your Federal health insurance benefits while you take these patient protections away from the American people. What a Valentine to the health insurance industry. When I think of people protected by this law, I always remember the powerful testimonial at a hearing last year from Stacie Ritter, whose twin daughters, Hannah and Madeleine, are both cancer survivors. They're 4 years old, and both were diagnosed with leukemia. Hannah and Madeleine faced stem cell transplants, chemotherapy, and total body irradiation. Yet, over time, Stacie said, ``We ended up bankrupt even with full insurance coverage.'' Today, Hannah and Madeleine are happy, healthy 13-year-olds. According to Stacie: My children now have protections from insurance discrimination based on their preexisting cancer condition. They will never have to fear the rescission of their insurance policy if they get sick. They can look forward to lower health insurance costs and preventative care. We passed the Affordable Care Act for people like Stacie, Hannah, and Madeleine, and we passed it for some of the people we heard from today at an earlier meeting. I urge my colleagues to think about them and to think about Stacie and her children when they cast a vote to take away their rights and protections. Here is what the Affordable Care Act is about: It's about strengthening the middle class, honoring the entrepreneurial spirit of our country, putting medical decisions in the hands of patients and their doctors. This is about innovation, prevention, wellness. It's about the good health of America as well as good health care for America. It's about restoring and reigniting the American Dream and living up to the vows of our Founders of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's about a healthier life, the liberty and freedom to pursue happiness as defined by your own passions and your own talents and your own skills and your own aspirations. If you want to start a business, if you want to be self-employed, if you want to change jobs, you are not job-locked because your decision about your job, your career, and your life has to be predicated by your health insurance company. That's what this freedom is in this 1 week from the Fourth of July that we celebrate with this bill. Now, to make the American Dream a reality for all, Republicans must stop this effort to take away patient protections from Americans. Let's review again what the GOP is taking away from Americans. This is the takeaway from this debate: Take away, the Republicans say, protections from children with preexisting conditions; take away prescription drug savings for seniors; take away coverage for young adults; take away preventative health services for women; take away the no lifetime limits, which are so important to so many families in our country. We must work together on America's top priorities--job creation and economic growth. This bill creates 4 million jobs. It reduces the deficit. It enables our society to have the vitality of everyone rising to their aspirations without being job-locked, as I said. The American people want us to create jobs. That's what we should be using this time on the floor for, not on this useless bill to nowhere-- bill to nowhere--that does serious damage to the health and economic well-being of America's families. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Let us move forward together to strengthen the economy and to strengthen the great middle class, which is the backbone of our democracy. Hello, My name is Aracely Rodriguez. I am from San Diego, CA and I work everyday to ensure that Latina women have access to comprehensive affordable health services from a trusted provider. I have the opportunity to experience first hand what a difference the Affordable Care Act will be for women, particularly women of color. It is hard for me to believe that anyone would want to take away there critical new benefits for women all over this country. We know the Affordable Care Act will make insurance more affordable and provide more choices to women and their families. As a result of the Affordable Care Act 14 million women will be newly insured. Today, about 39 percent of Latinas are uninsured--that is more than women of any other racial or ethnic group. The Affordable Care Act will ensure that women have access to preventative health services such as mammograms and life saving cancer screenings--and in August, many women will have access to even more preventive health services such as well- women visits and birth control without co-pays or deductibles. Access to birth control is a critical issue to many Latinas and their families. Over 50 percent of all Latinas have experienced a time in their lives when the cost of prescription birth control made it difficult for them to consistently use it. The Affordable Care Act will end gender discrimination once and for all--so that women are not charged more for insurance than men. This is what health reform means to women's health in our communities. ``Being a woman is not a pre-existing condition.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend him for his extraordinary patriotism, for his commitment to upholding our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, and for recognizing full well the congressional role of oversight of all branches of government. I think we all share the view that Congress has a legitimate role to play in oversight; thus, your committee has so much jurisdiction, and I respect that. I think we also all agree--I think we all very, very much agree--that we are very sad and seek justice for the family of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. His loss is a tragedy for all who knew him, for all of us who care about him. We offer our condolences to his family. So sad. But that's not what we are here to debate, what we agree upon. What we are here to debate is something very, very large because it is a major disagreement between the two sides of the aisle here--and I'm sorry to say that--about what our responsibilities are to the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution requires Congress and the executive branch to avoid unnecessary conflict and to seek accommodations that serve both their interests. That's how the Constitution guides us. As Attorney General William French Smith, who served under President Ronald Reagan, said: The accommodation required is not simply an exchange of concessions or a test of political strength. It is an obligation of each branch to make a principled effort to acknowledge and, if possible, to meet the legitimate needs of the other branch. Mr. Speaker, on the floor today, the Republicans in Congress are not making a principled effort to acknowledge or to meet the legitimate needs of the other branch. What they are doing is exploiting a very unfortunate circumstance for reasons that I cannot even characterize, so I won't; but I will say this without any fear of contradiction: The basic premise that this debate is predicated on today is a false premise. It is factually not true. In how many more ways can I say that? So we have a debate predicated on a false premise. What can that lead to that has any good outcome? It is a situation in which we have a contempt of Congress resolution against a sitting Cabinet member, which is the first time in the over-200-year history of our country that this has ever happened. Again, what is the motivation? Secondly--and that's why I quoted the Constitution--this motion is not a principled effort to resolve the issue. If it were, we would not be able to measure in hours and days, not even weeks, the rush--the railroading--of a resolution of contempt of Congress that the Republicans passed last week and are bringing this week to the House floor. I say this because I took considerable heat myself when we brought contempt charges against two staff people at the White House--Josh Bolton and Harriet Miers--4\1/2\ years ago. We were asking for some papers. We got nothing, as I said to my friends, not even a wrapper of a piece of gum. Nothing. Stonewalled. Nothing. Yet, at the time, our chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, and our House leadership, Mr. Hoyer and others, kept saying, Find a way. Exhaust every remedy so that we do not have to take this action of bringing a contempt charge to the floor of the House. For over 200 days, we tried, we tried, we tried to resolve the situation. When we could not, we brought it to the floor--two staff people at the White House--which is in stark contrast to the rush of one week to the next for an unsubstantiated--not even factual--charge against the Attorney General of the United States. It may just be a coincidence--I don't know--that the Attorney General of the United States, the chief legal officer of our country, has a responsibility to fight voter suppression, which is going on in our country; has refused to defend the constitutionality of DOMA because he doesn't believe it's constitutional; or has some major disagreements on immigration, which fall under the enforcement of immigration law. It may just be a coincidence that those are part of his responsibilities, or maybe it isn't. But the fact is is that the chief legal officer of our country and his staff have to spend enormous psychic and intellectual energy and time dealing with this unprincipled effort on the part of the Republicans. Just when you think you have seen it all, just when you think they couldn't possibly go any further over the edge, they come up with something like this. It's stunning. It really is. I don't mean that in meaning it's beautiful. It's stunning. It stops you in your tracks because you say: How far will they go? Have they no limits? Apparently, not. The temptation is to say: Let's just ignore the whole thing, to not dignify what they're doing by even being present on the floor when they do this heinous act, the first time in the history of our country, to bring contempt against a Cabinet officer. You would think they'd be more careful about what they say. But being careful about what they say is apparently not part of their agenda. I know in our caucus there is a mixed response to this. They're acting politically; we should act politically. We shouldn't vote on this; I want to vote ``no.'' I think Members have to make their own decision about that. I'm very moved by the efforts of our Congressional Black Caucus to say that they're going to walk out on this. Perhaps that's the best approach for us to take. How else can we impress upon the American people, without scaring them, about what is happening here? What is happening here? What is happening here is shameful. What is happening here is something that we all have an obligation to speak out against. Because I'm telling you it is Eric Holder today, and it's anybody else tomorrow on any charge they can drum up. As has been said, the fact is that the papers that they have seen, they know are exculpatory. That means there is no blame on the Attorney General, and they know that. That's why they don't want to bring those responsible for this before their committee, and that's why I commend Chairman Dingell for his leadership in the motion that he will bring to the floor momentarily, a motion of referral, so that we can get to the bottom of this, so that we can see how this happened, so that we can offer some solace to Brian Terry's family, and so that we can have some sense of decency about what should happen on the floor of the House. It seems to me the more baseless the charge, the higher up they want to go with the contempt. The less they have to say that is real, the higher up they want to bring the contempt charge. I have always tried to make it a habit of not questioning the motivation of people. They believe what they believe, we believe what we believe, and we act upon our beliefs. It always interested me that in this Congress somebody can bring something to the floor that is not true. But if I were to call someone a misrepresenter of that information, my words would be taken down. So I guess that gives them liberty to say anything because it's in the form of a motion. Let's make sure that we all take responsibility for doing the right thing by not letting there be an abuse of power, an abuse of this floor of the House, an abuse of the time of the executive branch, an abuse of the time of a member of the Cabinet who has serious responsibilities to our country. I urge my colleagues to do what they want as far as walking off. I myself had said that I was coming to this floor to vote against this resolution. I thought it was so wrong that there was no question to take the opportunity to vote ``no.'' But listening to the debate, it is almost unbelievable. Not that what they're saying is believable, but unbelievable that they would say it. I say to those who have a doubt about how they want to proceed, that instead of doing what I said before, which was just to come and treat this as a resolution before the Congress and express my ``no,'' after listening to the unconscionable presentation, I want to join my CBC colleagues in boycotting the vote when we have the walkout after we have the debate over Mr. Dingell's motion. We all take our responsibilities seriously here, and one of them first and foremost is to support, uphold, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution requires the Congress and the executive branch--as I began--to avoid unnecessary conflict and seek accommodation to serve both interests, the executive branch and the legislative branch. We are not upholding that aspect of the Constitution here. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' or a ``no'' vote, but to seriously reject. Let's hope that this will not be repeated. But I'm telling you, it's Eric Holder one day, and you don't know who it is the next because of the frivolousness with which they treat a serious responsibility of the House of Representatives. It's appalling.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Marion Osher Sandler--a prominent leader, a generous supporter of many humanitarian causes, and a dear friend who died June 1st. Her passing is a great loss to our community and the nation. Marion Osher was born to immigrant parents who valued both business and philanthropy and encouraged those values in her as well. When Marion married Manhattan lawyer Herb Sandler in 1961, a beautiful family and a lifelong partnership in business and philanthropy was begun. Marion and Herb together turned a two-branch Oakland savings and loan into Golden West Financial Corporation, with more than 11,000 employees. They ran Golden West for 43 years, she, the marketing and consumer brains of the firm, he the strategist. Marion Sandler was the first and longest serving woman CEO of a Fortune 500 company in the United States. The Sandlers' success enabled them to give back to the community by funding progressive political organizations and non-profits, particularly those that uplift the disadvantaged and underserved, such as Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union. They helped found The Center for Responsible Lending, which is devoted to protecting homeowners, The Center for American Progress, and ProPublica, an investigative journalism organization. Marion and Herb also supported lifesaving medical research, most recently donating $20 million to the University of California, San Francisco. The Sandler Neurosciences Center will house world leading clinical and research programs such as The Institute of Neurodegenerative Diseases, the UCSF Department of Neurology, the W.M. Keck Foundation Center for Integrative Neuroscience, and the UCSF Memory and Aging Center. Marion Osher Sandler lived the American dream. With a deep belief in a brighter future, she used her enormous gifts and talents to expand opportunities for all. She leaves behind a phenomenal legacy of service. Marion had many friends in the United States Congress. I hope it is a comfort to her family, including her beloved husband Herb, her children Susan and James, her grandchildren Leah and Elijah, and her brothers Bernard and Harold Osher, that so many mourn their loss and appreciate Marion's life.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. In the political life that we have here and our service to the American people, I take great pride in always saying, when somebody says to me, Were you surprised when somebody did this, that, or this bill did that or that? I say, I'm hardly ever surprised in politics because I know what the possibilities are. I am thoroughly surprised today. I had absolutely no idea the mischief that Mr. Hoyer was up to, going back decades, I might add. But I thank him for his kind words, and all of you for your nice reception. I thank the Speaker for his gracious comments as well. While he was speaking, I was remembering, oh, my goodness, we're taking up time on the floor and it's personal and that. But then I was recalling that it wasn't that long ago when we--maybe 5, 6 years ago when we came to the floor to acknowledge that then-Speaker Hastert was the longest serving Republican Speaker of the House and we made much ado about that landmark. So I comfortably accept your kind words, since we could observe that, and I think and I said, Long may his record stand, at that time. That passes for humor in certain circles. As the gentlemen were speaking, I was recalling when I was first Speaker and sitting in the chair to welcome the President of the United States to the Chamber for the first time, and it was President George W. Bush. President Bush surprised me that day, too, when he opened his remarks by saying to the gathered crowd that many Presidents had come to the Congress to speak to a joint session, but none of them had ever opened their remarks with these two words, ``Madam Speaker.'' And he then went on to say that although my father had served in Congress with President Roosevelt and President Truman, and that was a tremendous honor for him, little would that compare to the idea that his, he said something like ``baby girl'' was sitting in the chair as Speaker of the House. That was an honor for me. His father honored me for my 25th anniversary, President George Herbert Walker Bush, on President's Day, by inviting me to speak to his library, the Bush library at Texas A&M. We recalled a time of civility in the Congress when he was President, and we had our disagreements, as the Speaker acknowledged we still do, but we did so with great civility, and that was what we talked about that day. I considered that a great honor. And I consider this a great honor to serve with each and every one of you, patriots all, representatives, independent representatives of your district. And that word has two meanings. It's your title. It's also our job description, that we represent our districts and bring the beautiful diversity of opinion, of ethnicity, of generations, of geography, of philosophy to the Congress of the United States. The beauty, I say in my district, is in the mix. While I'm very honored to have served as the Speaker of the House, first woman Speaker of the House, first Italian American Speaker of the House, first Maryland Speaker of the House, first California Speaker of the House, many firsts, it always is the greatest privilege of my life, as I'm sure it is with each of you, to step on the floor of the House to represent and speak for the people of each of our individual districts. So I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kind words. While, as you said, we may not always agree on taxes, we did at one time when President Bush was President, and we worked together at that time on his stimulus package, which was tax-oriented. You remember that. And it was good for the country, and it was a good model for us to go forward. It is an honor to serve with you as Speaker. While I with great joy accepted the gavel from you that first time, it wasn't so joyful to hand it back over. Nonetheless, it's all in the Chamber, and that's where we all serve for the American people. Steny, you don't know when and you don't know where, but one day--one day--I will repay this magnificent honor you have extended to me, which has taken me totally by surprise. Wait until I talk to my staff about this later. Steny Hoyer is a great patriot, a great Marylander, a great American, a great Member of Congress--a Member's Member, a person who respects every person he serves with. Steny Hoyer--and Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for everyone in the Chamber when I say--we are proud to call you a colleague. Thank you so much for this time.