Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his very kind words. I thank you for yielding your Special Order that you have practically every night that Congress is in session to talk about jobs for the American people and to, instead, allow us to use this time to come to the floor to say, ``Hail to the chief. Congratulations and thank you, President Obama. Many of us in Congress come together in appreciation of your leadership, your determination, and your commitment of resources in the fight against Osama bin Laden.'' I am pleased to join so many of my colleagues who have come to the floor to express their appreciation for this historic achievement. We all know that the death of Osama bin Laden is not the end of terrorism, but it is a significant step. It sends a clear message that the American people will pursue justice. I would also like to express my gratitude to our former Congressman colleague but now Director of the CIA and soon to be the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta. He was tasked by the President and named by the President in his remarks on Sunday evening as the person who had the responsibility to get the job done. Our colleague Congresswoman Jackson Lee has referenced the entire national security team, some specifically. I want to associate myself with her comments in that regard: the President's national security team and the Special Ops team--the men and women in uniform and our officers in the intelligence community. It is a testament to their professionalism, their precision, and their talent that no American lives were lost in this action; but it is indicative of, again, the contribution that they and their families make to help us uphold our oath of office to protect and defend. That's what we take an oath of office to do. We recognize that this achievement was not just the goal of President Obama's, who said as candidate Obama and as President, If I have actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, I will act upon them--and act upon them he did. I called both former President George W. Bush and President Clinton to thank them for their work in this regard. In the '90s, President Clinton declared Osama bin Laden to be America's ``public enemy number one.'' He saw that danger long before 9/11. Then, of course, following 9/11, President Bush tried to pursue Osama bin Laden. Their work was important, but I am here to commend President Obama in particular for executing the plan to get it done in recognition of the foundation that was laid by President Clinton and President Bush. When we think of the symbol of Osama bin Laden and why bringing this to closure is so important, we are venturing onto sacred ground, 9/11-- a shocking act of terrorism that affected our country very, very deeply, but none more deeply than the families who were affected by 9/ 11. We can never make them whole. We can never make up to them all that they have lost, but I hope it is some comfort to them that at least this has happened, however long it took. They used their grief for the greater good at the time by supporting the 9/11 Commission to investigate why this happened so endangering the lives of the American people would never happen again. I commend the 9/11 families for their sacrifice, yes, for their patriotism, and for what they did to make a difference as we go into the future. Who knows? Maybe the work of the 9/11 Commission contributed to the success of this operation as well. I know that our time is running out, and I just want to close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that our colleagues in the United States Senate unanimously passed a resolution to honor those who so successfully carried out this mission, and I'd like to associate myself with the language of their resolution. It says in part: ``The death of Osama bin Laden represents a measure of justice and relief for the families and friends of the nearly 3,000 men and women who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, the men and women in the United States and around the world who have been killed by other al Qaeda-sponsored attacks, the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and the intelligence community who have sacrificed their lives pursuing Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.'' As they said, the death of Osama bin Laden represents a measure of justice. With gratitude for this measure of justice, I again hail to the chief, President Obama, for his great work. I thank him and congratulate him and all who made this historic achievement possible.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As is very evident by the response to your remarks in praise of Father Coughlin, if there's one thing that Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives agree on, it is that God has truly blessed us with the service of Father Coughlin as our Chaplain for the past 11 years. When we talk about him being our Chaplain, it's not that he's just the Chaplain of the Members, he's the Chaplain for the staff, for the carpenter that we see in the hall, for the service employees who are here. He ministers to the needs of all of us here, sometimes in a very macro way. When 9/11 struck, or in Tucson most recently, or with the anthrax threat, those kinds of things had an impact on all of us. Father was there for us as a group, and he was there for us individually. We never know what joys or pain our colleagues or our workers here are undergoing or suffering. Father Dan knows more than most of us, and his discretion is something that we all value and respect. Father Dan has ministered to the needs of the poor with the Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta, India. He has meditated with the Trappist monks in the monastery, and I think he's going back to do some of that again. He has been a scholar-in-residence at the North American College in Rome, exchanging ideas there. He has ministered to the needs of his parishioners in LaGrange, Illinois, and that probably serves him best for ministering to the diverse needs of the flock that he shepherds here. We are very, very, very honored. Last year, many of us in a bipartisan way stood up and sang the praises. It seems so recent, but it was a year ago. Then after that, Father was honored in Illinois for serving as a priest for 50 years. For some of us, it was really a special source of pride. Although we respect all of our Chaplains, it was a source of personal pride that he was the first Roman Catholic Chaplain in the House of Representatives, and he showed that he could minister to the needs of all of the Members of all faiths here. So, yes, we are very blessed by his service in the Congress. We are going to miss him a great deal. We wish him well as he goes forth. The legacy that he left us is one that was not only of opening prayer each day to inspire us and lift us to a higher place in our deliberations, but he set an example of civility in the Congress of confidentiality of relationships. He was a great Chaplain. We will miss him greatly, and we are enormously grateful to him. Thank you, Father Coughlin.

Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend him and the members of the Budget Committee for their hard work to bring legislation to the floor to enable us to have this debate yesterday and today and I think for a long time to come. We have said it over and over again: A Federal budget should be a statement of our national values. It should reflect what is important to us as we allocate the resources of investments for the future. Much has been said about this deficit, and I want to join the distinguished ranking member before I go any further in correcting the record. I listened with great interest as Members on the other side are taking credit for the Clinton administration balanced, or budgets in surplus. And I remind them or tell them, because many of them may not know, that those budgets were a result of the 1993 budget vote that we took on this floor of the House without one Republican vote which was the source of that fiscal discipline and job creation, again, as other speakers have said, over 20 million jobs created. So when I hear the Republicans say it was the Clinton Presidency and the Republican Congress, no, it was the Democratic Congress, because we know that deficit reduction is essential. We had to stop the budget deficits that President Clinton inherited, and now we have to stop the budget deficits that President Obama inherited. Budget deficits, I've heard our colleagues say, are immoral. I quite agree. We have a responsibility and an obligation to our children and our grandchildren not to send them any bills, personal or official. And we do not intend to do so. But they were immoral during the Bush years, too, when they were giving tax cuts to the rich, two unpaid-for wars and a prescription drug benefit that gave away the store to the private sector and sent the bill to the taxpayer. So here we are with a choice on the floor. Some of it was spoken; a vision of it was shared with the Nation by President Obama the other day. He talked about an America of greatness that cared about its people. He talked about the essential need for us to reduce the deficit. He talked about growth, investments, and job creation. He talked about being fair to our seniors and keeping our promise to them. In the budgets that we have before us today, one presented by Mr. Van Hollen, one presented by the Republicans, we see a sharp contrast, one that supports the vision that the President puts forth, and one that definitely does not. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the budget deficit; but we also in doing so, if we are going to do right by the American people, have to recognize that there are other deficits. We have a deficit in education. We have a deficit in innovation because innovation begins in the classroom. We have a deficit in investments in our infrastructure. All of these investments have a payoff back to us. They create growth. They bring revenue to the Treasury, and they help reduce the deficit. It is a false economy to think that we can write a budget that cuts serious investments in education, infrastructure, innovation and the rest and think that we are going to end the deficit. You cannot cut your way out of it. You cut, you grow, and you increase revenue. That's a subject I will hold for when we talk about the Republican budget more specifically. What is important to note, if you had one thing to know about the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in terms of these budgets, if you had just one thing, it would be on the subject of Medicare. The Republican budget breaks the promise that this country has made to seniors that after a lifetime of work, they will be able to depend on Medicare to protect them in retirement. But the plan here ends Medicare as we know it and dramatically reduces benefits for seniors. It forces seniors to buy their insurance from the health insurance companies where the average senior would be forced to pay twice as much for half the benefit--as much for some as $20,000 a year. I want to call the attention of my colleagues to this chart, ``Senior Citizens Health Cost Skyrockets Under Republican Budget.'' Blue is the government share, red is the beneficiary share. Health care spending for a typical 65-year-old in 2022 dollars, the Republican budget would have $8,000 from the Federal Government, $12,500 from the individual, which is more than twice what the Medicare cost should be to a senior, $6,150; twice as much for less in benefit. Now, this chart is not our chart. This information was conveyed to the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in a letter to him describing what the cost would be to seniors under his plan. I just don't think that is fair to our seniors. This plan has the wrong priorities. It is focused on helping corporate special interests and Wall Street, not reducing the deficit or helping the country. It raises taxes for the middle class while cutting them for the wealthiest in our country. It repeals Wall Street reforms for the big banks. It abolishes Medicare as we know it, cuts funding for education, health care, alternative energy and job training programs, and uses the money not for reducing the deficit but to help the most privileged, help the most privileged and negate what we did in our health care bill, which was to start to close the doughnut hole. If you are a senior and you see that your prescription drug costs will come down under the health care bill and the doughnut hole will close, this budget reverses that. There are so many reasons for seniors and people with disabilities and people who care about Medicare to be concerned. Medicare is a bedrock of stability for our seniors, for their health, for their economic security, and for those with disabilities who depend on it. We must make sure that it is solvent, but we must not charge seniors more while giving bigger tax cuts to the wealthy. Just remember these three points. First of all, it abolishes Medicare as we know it, increasing costs to seniors, while it gives tax breaks of tens of billions of dollars to Big Oil. Changes in Medicaid will send seniors out of nursing homes while we give tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas. This Ryan budget, the Republican budget, will hurt education, cut the education of our children, increase the cost of higher education for young adults, 10 million young adults, while we give tax cuts to the wealthiest. That's just not the American way. The President said in his remarks that we are about shared responsibility and shared sacrifice. We are about a sense of community in our country. And so as we want to reduce the deficit, the fiscal deficit, and we must, and we have proven, Democrats have proven that we can, this proposal does not. But what Mr. Van Hollen is proposing in the positive sense is recognizing that we need to reduce the deficit, growth is a part of that and so we have investments in education and the innovation that springs from that, and other initiatives that grow our economy, that strengthen the middle class, that creates jobs as it reduces the deficit. I urge our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on Mr. Van Hollen's budget and ``no'' on the Ryan budget to strengthen the middle class.

Ms. PELOSI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for bringing a budget proposal to the floor today that is a statement of our national values and about what we care about: investing in our children, honoring our seniors, creating jobs, growing the economy and strengthening the middle class. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen, for your great leadership in that regard. Mr. Chairman, today we will be taking a vote that is very, very important for the health and security of American seniors. A great deal is at stake. I'm just going to focus on one part of this Republican budget. I want to say to my Republican colleagues, Do you realize that your leadership is asking you to cast a vote today to abolish Medicare as we know it? Because that is the vote that we have. This is not about an issue; this is about a value. This is about an ethic. Medicare is a core value of our social compact with the American people. Yet this budget shreds that contract which is part of the strength of our country. The Republican proposal breaks the promise that our country has made to our seniors that after a lifetime of work, they will be able to depend on Medicare to protect them in retirement. This plan, the Republican plan, ends Medicare as we know it and dramatically reduces benefits for seniors. It forces them to pay more to buy their insurance from health insurance companies, where the average senior will be forced to pay twice as much for half the benefit. I want to repeat that: the Republican plan forces seniors to buy their insurance from health insurance companies where the average senior will be forced to pay twice as much for half the benefits, as much as $20,000 per year more for some seniors. This plan has the wrong priority for our seniors and for all Americans. Just remember these three things about the Republican budget: It ends Medicare as we know it as it gives big tax breaks and subsidies--tens of billions of dollars--to Big Oil. This budget reduces Medicaid for our seniors in nursing homes, sending them away from nursing homes, while it gives tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas. This budget hurts our children's education. In fact, it increases the cost of higher education for nearly 10 million of our young adults, while it gives tax breaks to America's wealthiest families. That's just not fair. It is just not the American way. Here we are. Yesterday, we observed the 100th day of the Republican majority in Congress. In those 100 days, not one job has been created. Not one job agenda is in the works. And what are we doing? We are here to abolish Medicare instead. I have heard our colleagues say that the budget deficit is immoral. It's been immoral for the 8 years of the Bush administration, and I didn't hear anybody say ``boo'' while we were giving tax cuts to the rich, having two wars unpaid for, and giving prescription drug bills to the private sector. Democrats are committed to reducing the deficit. We have demonstrated that we can during the Clinton administration, and we will. We are committed to strengthening the middle class, to growing our economy as we reduce the deficit, and to creating jobs. The Republican budget fails to do that, and the Republican budget will not have Democratic support. We are here, and as one of the previous speakers said, now is the time. Now is the time to preserve Medicare. And Democrats will. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican plan.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her forceful leadership in promoting women's health. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, when I was in high school--a long time ago--I participated in an extemporaneous debate contest. One of the contestants there, a friend of mine, drew from the bowl a slip that said, ``Do women think?'' ``Do women think?'' Now, this was a long time ago, but even then we thought that was a startling question, ``Do women think?'' The young lady who drew it--she was really a girl in high school--spoke with great grace and strength about women and won the debate, which we hope to do today. I hadn't thought of that debate for a long time, but it came rushing down on me as I heard our Republican colleagues put forth their cuts on women's health, especially eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood. The arguments which the Republicans have put forth sound like the same question of a decade ago, do women think? It's an assault on the judgment of women. It bespeaks a lack of respect for women to determine the size and the timing of their families. It's clear that Republicans do not support family planning--it's hard to understand, but it's clear that they don't--and have used debate on this bill to spread misinformation about the critical work that Planned Parenthood does on behalf of America's women every day. So let us be clear, Planned Parenthood health centers currently provide preventive services to millions of women in need of health care, including the provision of contraception, cancer screening, breast exams, and HIV testing. Further, this debate is not about abortion. That is because Federal funding for abortion is already prohibited. That is the law of the land. This debate is about women's health. Every year, Planned Parenthood health centers provide the following for women's health: Contraception to nearly 2.5 million patients; nearly 1 million pap tests identifying about 93,000 women at risk for developing cervical cancer; 830,000 breast exams, helping alert patients to possible cancers. That is why cutting off Federal funding for Planned Parenthood would have a devastating impact on women's health across the country. Indeed, more than 90 percent of the health care provided by Planned Parenthood is preventive care. For a majority of the women who use Planned Parenthood health centers, the centers are the primary source of receiving health care services. Elimination of funding means that these women do not have health care of any kind. Today's legislation--which has no chance of passing the Senate and becoming law, thank God--is just part of the Republican agenda that is the most comprehensive and radical assault on women's health and reproductive freedom in our lifetime. And that's saying something. Further, I point out that today on the floor of this House, this is the 100th day of the Republicans having the majority, here we are again debating legislation that has nothing to do with the number one priority of the American people: creating jobs. Indeed, after 100 days, the Republicans have not created one job and have not offered a jobs agenda and are instead on the march against women's health and to end Medicare in order to give tax breaks to Big Oil and millionaires. Some Republicans say that we're here because we did not pass a bill last year. It was shocking to hear even some members of the Appropriations Committee--who should know better--on the Republican side say that. But indeed we did. It was held up by Republicans in the Senate. We passed it in the House without one Republican vote, the omnibus bill, but it was held up by the Republicans in the Senate. And in that bill we cut $41 billion from the President's budget. So today when I hear our colleagues say we are cutting $78 billion-- $37.5 today. The other $41 billion, which is the largest amount, was cut by the Democrats without one Republican vote at the end of last year. Today, in this latest partisan maneuver, Republicans are perpetrating an attack on the health of women across the country, and I rise in strong opposition to their efforts. We must all stand strong against that agenda against women's health. We must all continue to work to create a healthier America. And that is why I urge a ``yes'' to women's judgment, a ``yes'' to respect their decision on the size and timing of their families, and a ``no'' for this vote, which is an attack on women's health.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in support of consumer choice, innovation and economic growth, and a free and open Internet, I oppose the repeal of net neutrality rules. In the wake of extraordinary movements for reform and human rights in the Middle East--organized online, on Facebook and Twitter--the United States must take heed of one of the fundamental facts of our time: that an open Internet is a critical building block of free, prosperous, democratic societies in the 21st century. Out of this conviction, many of us have fought for net neutrality rules--because neither government nor telecommunications firms should be in charge of our free speech; because the Internet strengthens our democracy, stimulates investment, and bolsters our economy. As a coalition of small businesses wrote in opposition to today's resolution: ``the open Internet increases opportunities for businesses large and small to compete and grow . . . An open Internet allows us to reach our customers at any place and at any time . . . An open Internet is an engine for economic growth, innovation, and job creation.'' To put it another way: an open Internet enhances consumer choice, supports entrepreneurship, and ensures competition in our economy. Among those leading the charge are: Ranking Member Henry Waxman, Energy and Commerce Committee; Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology; Congressman Ed Markey, Congressman Mike Doyle, and Congresswoman Doris Matsui of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Late last year--after hearing from public interest groups, civil rights organizations, religious leaders, small businesses, unions, and education advocates--the Federal Communications Commission issued long- overdue rules for open access to websites and online services. These standards were a step in the right direction; but they did not go far enough. Standing alone, the rules are not sufficiently clear, consistent, or firm to effectively protect consumers and innovative freedom. But that's not reason to eliminate them; it's reason to strengthen them. However, the resolution before us today takes us in the wrong direction. It will revoke basic consumer protections of transparency and choice online; eliminate competition and shut off outlets of innovation. And it betrays the democratic values resting at the core of our history, our success, and our country's prosperity. We live in an era when the Internet has the potential to transform lives for the better--through job creation and economic development; as a venue to communicate, speak out, and exercise our fundamental right to free expression. Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree that we must tap into this potential for the benefit of all Americans. We must work together to maintain and expand an Internet where innovation can flourish, where consumer choice is protected, where the democratic spirit of our nation remains strong. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership in this debate this afternoon. I have been listening to it very intently. I heard the debate on the rule this morning and then the debate this afternoon. Some questions have arisen. First, I want to state a fact. The fact is that every single one of us in this body as our first act raises our right hand to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The bill that we have on the floor before us does violence to those provisions in the Constitution that describe how to pass a bill--not by one House deeming it, but, as our distinguished assistant leader, Mr. Clyburn, described his daughter's schoolchildren in her class could tell you that you pass one House, you pass another House, it's signed by the President. But that seems to be missed by the makers of this resolution today. Again, Mr. Clyburn talked about the constitutional authority to bring this bill to the floor. It's truly a mystery how you can take an oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States, bring a bill to the floor in violence of that, and justify it constitutionally. I've heard the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, say that we have some visiting parliamentarians here who are watching this debate to see if Congress can get its job done. Please don't pay attention to this. What you see on the floor today is no example of democracy in action. It's silly. The Republican leadership is asking its members to make a silly vote. And it's time for us to stop that silliness and get serious about the creation of jobs, get serious about not shutting down government, abnegating our responsibilities and shutting down government. I've heard Mr. Hoyer earlier today talk about how we got here in terms of this budget deficit. We all know that we must reduce the deficit. That's why, during the Clinton years, as Mr. Hoyer said, we reversed the first Bush's deficit. We came out in a trajectory of fiscal responsibility, going into surplus. The last five Clinton budgets were in surplus or in balance. But because of tax cuts for the rich, two unpaid-for wars, and a prescription drug bill that gave away the store to the pharmaceutical industry, we came back into deficit-- the biggest swing in fiscal irresponsibility in our country's history. And now we've had to deal with that. And what's the answer that the Bush administration gave us? Tax cuts for the rich. That's how you create jobs. We didn't. That's how you reduce the deficit. We grew it. I think it's important when we're talking about the deficit--which we all agree must be cut--and we talk about jobs to note that in the first year of the Obama administration more jobs were created in the private sector than in the 8 years of the Bush administration. Tax cuts for the rich did not produce jobs. Cuts in initiatives to educate our people and keep us healthy and safe, those cuts did not create jobs. So here we are today, at the end of a week, wasting the public's time on a notion--not even an idea; on a notion--that does not rise to the level of a credible idea that one House can deem a bill the law of the land. I also heard on the floor of the House a call for Senator Reid, the leader in the Senate, to take up H.R. 1. He did. It failed. Not even the Republicans all voted for it in the United States Senate. Three Republican Senators voted against H.R. 1 in the Senate. Perhaps you don't know the date, but it did happen. It's stunning to hear this debate that talks about visiting parliamentarians seeing an example of good government in action. No. Wrong. So what could be the explanation for this? Mr. Clyburn suggested it could be April Fool's and at end of this debate the gentleman will withdraw the amendment, apologize for wasting the public's time, and say that this is only an April Fool's joke. Because that's the only thing that it complies with. It does not comply or conform with honoring the Constitution. It does not create jobs. It does not reduce the deficit, and it does not have the support of the Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his hard work to help keep the government open. While many of us will not agree on the legislation before us today, we know it is necessary for us to proceed. So I don't rise to support or oppose the legislation but, instead, to comment on the situation that we are in. Again, today, we are in a situation. We are debating a short-term bill to keep the government open on a week-by-week basis. This is not any way to run a government or a business. It certainly is not the way, as the military leadership has told us, to protect the national security of our country--on a week-to-week basis. Democrats will work with Republicans on legislation that will create jobs, that will strengthen the middle class, and that will reduce the deficit. On all three of these scores, this Republican spending bill fails. Democrats have long fought for fiscal responsibility as a top priority of this Congress. We won't go into the history right now, but it's well known that President Clinton took us out of a period of deficit--his last five budgets being in surplus, or in balance. President Bush turned that around immediately when he became President, and now we have to dig ourselves out of the deficit that he has taken us into. Last December, Democrats passed a $41 billion cut in the President's budget. We did so with only one Republican vote, $41 billion. Democrats are in the lead on fiscal soundness. On the subject of jobs, we are in the 11th week of the Republican majority in the Congress, and we have not seen one bill that will create jobs. In fact, the only bill coming from the Republicans, the only legislation that has come to the floor to create jobs, would be the Democratic initiatives. One is Build America Bonds: to build the infrastructure of America to keep ahead of the game in terms of innovation. Build America Bonds. Republicans overwhelmingly rejected that. The other bill was a bill to keep our jobs from going overseas by rewarding businesses that sent jobs overseas. Democrats said ``no'' to that idea. Republicans said ``no'' to our legislation. Zero jobs bills in 11 weeks. It is quite different from the record of President Obama, who came into office 2 years ago with a Democratic Congress. President Obama was a job creator from day one, one week and one day after the President's inaugural address, calling for swift bold action now to create jobs. The House of Representatives passed the recovery bill, which was then passed by the Senate and signed into law in a matter of weeks. That legislation created or saved 3.6 million jobs. This is important in terms of the deficit because it produced jobs. It produced revenue into the Treasury that helped reduce the deficit. Tax cuts for the wealthy, which has been the job creator that the Republicans put forth in the Bush administration and have put forth since, do not create jobs but increase the deficit. So we are at the place, again, of 11 weeks. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Republican spending bill would cost not a trivial amount of jobs; Mark Zandi, the Republican economist, said the Republican spending bill would destroy 700,000 jobs. Goldman Sachs said the Republican spending bill would reduce U.S. economic growth by 1.5 to 2 percent; 320 economists sent a letter, calling Republican cuts a threat to our economy's long-term economic competitiveness and to the strength of our current economic recovery. They all agree, to one extent or another, that the Republican agenda is taking us in the wrong direction, and that agenda is manifested in the continuing resolution, H.R. 1, and in the budget approach that they are taking. In fact, in addition to not creating jobs, the Republican initiative is making matters worse. Many of us have come to the floor to talk about budgets year in and year out. We all say that our national budget should be a statement of our national values. What is important to our country should be reflected in the allocation of our resources. We want to have that debate on values rather than just on cuts. Again, we all agree we have to get rid of waste, fraud, abuse, duplication, obsolescence, and the rest. The GAO has given us a blueprint for that, and we subscribe to that. We all agree that we must reduce the deficit, and the fiscal commission has given us a road map for that. We can agree or disagree with some of it; but the fact is it gives us a blueprint for how to go forward, and we should take heed of that. That blueprint says that we should not be making cuts right now that will be harmful to our recovery. Yet that's exactly what the Republican initiatives do. So as to this statement of value, when we have this debate, it's not a debate about are we going to cut 6 million or 3 million seniors off of Meals on Wheels. It's about who we are as a country, how do we protect the American people both in our national security and our neighborhoods. It's how we educate our children to make them happy and also how to keep us competitive as innovators internationally. It's how we maintain a healthy America. It's not just about their health care but about their good health: the air they breathe, the water they drink, the safety of the food they eat. It is about the creation of jobs. I believe we have an obligation as a government to be job creators. Jobs give people the means to find their own happiness and also to bring revenue into the Treasury, if we're just speaking pragmatically and not in terms of values. I don't believe it's just about the dollars. It's because of the values that we have to have this debate. Unfortunately, the bills that we are being presented with, like H.R. 1, are like a balloon. You squeeze it here and it pops out there. It doesn't change anything for the better. In fact, as has been indicated, it makes matters worse. So as we consider our budgetary decisions as a discussion, as a statement of our national values, we have to remember that the greatness of our country depends on the strengthening of our middle class. We have to do that by creating jobs, and we certainly must reduce the deficit. Now we are waiting at the negotiating table for the Republicans to show that they are willing to work together--we cut $41 billion with one Republican vote--and that they are willing to work together to reach an agreement that is a statement of our values. I think we can do that. Many of us have worked together on the Appropriations Committee over the years. I urge our Republican colleagues to join us in our efforts to create jobs, to strengthen the middle class, and to reduce the deficit--and to do so in the interest of the American people. That's why I think, on this vote today, people will vote however they view their own statements about it. The big vote that is coming up is the vote on the continuing resolution, on the long-term basis to keep the government open and functioning for people--again, in a way that is a statement of values for our great country.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the Speaker of the House to honor a committed public servant, a woman of this House, a key thread in the fabric of the congressional staff, who retires today after 54 years of service: Pat Kelly. Fifty-four years of service. Since arriving as a committee staffer in 1957, Pat Kelly has worked behind the scenes on behalf of the American people--never asking for recognition, never looking for the limelight. The daughter of Congresswoman Edna Kelly, Pat said she came to Washington because, in her words, ``I just felt the urge to do something.'' And for more than half a century, she did far more than her fair share. Pat Kelly has served in many roles on Capitol Hill. In all, she helped Members to do their jobs and worked tirelessly on issues important to her and critical to our country's future. Few issues played a larger role for her than the fight for women's rights. In 1962, she helped her mother pass the first equal pay bill and watched with pride as President John F. Kennedy signed it into law. As a legislative aide to former Congresswoman Martha Griffiths, Pat fought for the Equal Rights Amendment--continuing the march for equality, advancing the cause of justice for all women. Thank you, Pat. We're all in your debt. Through it all, whether the legislation succeeded or failed, she stood by a simple mantra: ``It's important for women to be involved.'' For the past 22 years she has served as editor of the House Daily Digest, tracking committee activities and getting the word out on what's happening on Capitol Hill. In that role she has noted, ``I've been through the turnover to Republicans and back to Democrats, and tried to help each and every one of them do their jobs.'' Helping others do their jobs, working in a bipartisan way--this was the essence of Pat Kelly's career and service. Pat Kelly's 54 years serving the House of Representatives is a reflection of her own dedication to Congress and the country, and represents the commitment, devotion to duty, and passion for service of all of our congressional staffers. Thank you, Pat, for giving so much to the House, for all of your work, and for fulfilling your promise to ``do something'' for all Americans. Yes, I join the Speaker in saying you will be missed. We are sorry that you are leaving. We wish you much success and, with deep gratitude, send you our love and best wishes.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding time and for presenting the Dicks substitute, which was not allowed to come to the floor, but nonetheless I salute him for his leadership in that regard. Madam Speaker, Members of Congress agree, I think, on two things today: that we must move this process forward so that government does not shut down, and that we must reduce the deficit. As we do that, we must create jobs and strengthen the middle class. That is someplace where we may have some separation, because as the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Dicks, has said earlier, in December of 2010, congressional Democrats and the President of the United States cut spending by $41 billion--$41 billion. On that day in December, only one Republican voted for those cuts--only one. February, 2 months later, Republicans passed a spending bill that does not create jobs but, in fact, has been said to destroy 700,000 jobs. That's approximately 100,000 jobs a week since we passed our ``cut it'' bill. February 2011, Republicans passed the same spending bill that reduces U.S. economic growth by 1\1/2\ to 2 percent. Now some have questioned, Is it really as much as 700,000 jobs? Is it really as much as 1\1/2\ to 2 percent? But no one questions whether there will be job loss or whether there will be a slowing down of our economic growth among serious economists. We are going in the wrong direction. How fast may be the question. But we are going in the wrong direction. That is why it's very important for us to proceed with great care and great caution here because, again, we have the opportunity to create jobs, to strengthen the middle class, and to do so in a way that is fiscally sound. When I hear our colleagues talk about the deficit and the immorality of a big deficit--and I completely agree that we owe it to our children and our grandchildren not to leave them a debt--but all this talk about deficit is what we have, as Democrats, taken the lead on for decades. Do you remember--because many of you were here at the time--that when President Clinton became President he inherited an enormous debt? He instituted pay-as-you-go, we had an economic agreement that was passed in the Congress, and the deficit began to reduce to a path of $5.6 trillion in surplus. Another President Bush took office; pay-as-you-go went out the window; and, again, the turnaround into growing deficits. So for all of this talk about the immorality of deficits, where were you when those deficits were instituted in the late eighties? Some of you were here. In the 2000s, many of you were here. And, again, we have to take our country on a path of deficit reduction. Many of you were here when the tax cuts for the high end were implemented, creating no jobs, except increasing our deficit, sending the bill to our children and the credit to the Chinese Government. How about when we did the prescription drug bill, giving away the store to the pharmaceutical industry and the price tag to our children by increasing the deficit? How about two wars, unpaid-for wars? God knows we will do anything to protect and defend our people. And I would hope that everybody subscribes to that. Why would we have tax cuts for people at the highest end? Why wouldn't they pay their fair share of protecting the American people and American interests and their interest wherever they may exist in the world? And so we had in the 8 years of President Bush's administration a complete reversal, an $11 trillion swing, $5.6 trillion in surplus to nearly $5 trillion in debt. And now people are saying it is an immorality to have national debt and to have these deficits. We thoroughly agree. And that's why, once again, we must take our country down a path of deficit reduction, but to do so in a way that is job creating and strengthening of the middle class. As I said, in December 2010 Democrats cut $41 billion in spending. Only one Republican voted for that. February 2011, Republicans passed a spending bill that could destroy 700,000 jobs and reduce and slow down our GDP, our gross domestic product, by 1.5 to 2 percent. If you want to say it's going to slow down less than that, it's still going in the wrong direction. I commented on Mr. Dicks' proposal because in the bill that we have before us, we have a situation where the Republicans have stripped the bill of important initiatives to the education of our children. In fact, President Obama made some of those cuts, too; but he didn't do it in a way that hurt the children. What we debate today undermines our future by stripping support for some pressing educational challenges without redirecting those critical resources to meet the educational needs of our children. What Mr. Dicks proposed would have reversed that. He would have eliminated those educational programs in a way, as did the President, in the context of a comprehensive budget that also redirected funds to other initiatives addressing these needs. If we do not, as a Congress, understand that education is essential, is key to all of our success--key to all of our success--then, frankly, the American people are way ahead of us on that. That's why I asked when we debated the bill before the break to see a quarter of a million children thrown off Head Start and many teachers fired alongside that, is that a smart cut? Sure, we have to tighten our belt. But let's do it, again, in a very smart way. I just want to know where everybody was in the days when this deficit grew in the 8 years of the Bush administration. That's why we're in the situation we are in today. That's why we must, again, make some very difficult decisions. So what is before us today is for the short term. It is saying, let's just keep the government open 2 weeks so we use that time to do the right thing and so we use that time to have a reality check--a reality check--on how we got these deficits in the first place. Tax cuts at the highest end do not create jobs but increase the deficit and are not the appropriate path to deficit reduction. Cutting education and therefore the innovation that goes with it and the strength of our children and affecting our economy is not the way to do it. Many people here have met much experience on the way to do it, and they sit on both sides of the aisle. So let's get through this today, recognizing the challenge that we have, understanding that this bill before us is not a good one, but it's not final. And when we come together, we need to meet the three criteria: Does it create jobs? Does it strengthen the middle class? Does it reduce the deficit? Because all of those who say that it is immoral for us to grow the deficit and pass those bills on to our children and grandchildren are right. I just don't want them to ignore the fact that we got here a certain way, and please do not ask us to go down that path again with the sanctimonious attitude that it is a morality for us to do exactly the same thing again, ignoring again the tremendous, tremendous suffering of the American people and their need for jobs, ignoring the aspirations of our children and their need for education by making the cuts that are in here without them rechanneling to a better place. This is as serious a debate that we can have in the Congress of the United States because it affects our children and their future, because the deficits have gotten so far out of hand. I am very proud of the fact that 30 years ago--in 1982, 29 years ago--when Democrats gathered in Philadelphia for a midterm conference, pay-as-you-go was placed on the agenda, passed as a resolution, and became part of the Democratic platform. Fiscal responsibility is a part of who we are. Our Blue Dog Coalition has had this as their mantra: pay as you go. Do not add to the deficit. If we all share that view, we should all be able to come together because the numbers will add up or they will not add up, and the bill for sure will be sent to our children and grandchildren. Some of you have children; some of you have children and grandchildren. Would you ever dream of sending them a bill for a personal expense? If you were to leave them anything, would you leave them a bill? We cannot leave the children of America with any bills for any fiscal deficit either. It wouldn't be the right thing to do. But in order for us to do the right thing, it is time for a serious reality check, and that is the opportunity Mr. Dicks was giving us today. The Rules Committee rejected that. I hope that in the weeks ahead, depending on what happens here today, we can move on with it so we can spend whatever time it takes to do it right. Nothing less is at stake than the economic security of our country, the well-being of our children, the well-being of our children and the confidence that the American people have in what we are sent here to do for them.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of James J. Haggerty, known affectionately to many of us as ``The Big Fella.'' He was the beloved husband to his cherished Cecelia and proud father of seven: Jeanie, Mauri, James Jr., Matthew, Cecelia, Daniel, and Katie. And he was the doting grandfather to 18. Jim's life motto was ``to those whom much is given, much is expected.'' He believed strongly in public service, through which he knew he could help people. When his close and dear friend, Bob Casey, became Governor of Pennsylvania, Jim served in his cabinet as Secretary of the Commonwealth and later as his General Counsel. Jim's life was made full by his big family and many friends. He adored his wife, and he died just 11 days before their 45th wedding anniversary. He was strengthened by his abiding Catholic faith, loved his Irish heritage, and was a loyal Dunmorean. Jim supported many worthy causes, serving as chairman of the board of the University of Scranton, a member of the board of Scranton Preparatory School, and a staunch champion of the United Way of Lackawanna County. His good works strengthened northeast Pennsylvania. At his funeral mass, Monsignor Joseph Quinn said of Jim to an overflowing and loving crowd: ``God used him to build many bridges along the way, bridges that connect lives.'' His grandson, James, called him a man of courage and generosity, saying: ``He has taught me the importance of giving back.'' As the Scranton Times-Tribune reported, James Jr. said his father epitomized ``honesty, integrity, and love'' to his family. And he closed with a poem read by Robert F. Kennedy in Lackawanna County in 1964, about Irish freedom fighter Owen Roe O'Neill: ``We're sheep without a shepherd, when the snow shuts out the sky. Oh! Why did you leave us, Owen? Why did you die?'' My husband Paul and I were proud to call the Haggertys our friends for nearly 50 years, and are deeply saddened by Jim's passing. It is a source of great happiness to us that our children and grandchildren are loving friends. Indeed, so many were proud to call Jim their friend: last Sunday, in Scranton, a line of those who had come to pay their respects to Jim stretched for blocks. As they waited in line for hours, they shared their stories of how Jim Haggerty helped them. I hope it is a comfort to the Haggerty family, to Celia and to their children and grandchildren, that so many grieve their loss and are praying for them in this sad time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I commend her for her leadership on a very important issue, the health and well-being of the American people. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment that is on the floor today and also the underlying bill of which it is a part. The American people are desperate for jobs. They have sent us here to work together to create jobs; and in the 6 weeks of this new majority, not one piece of legislation has come forward to create one job. Showing the lack of ideas to do so, the Republican majority has chosen, instead, to change the subject, taking up a bill of such consequence without hearings, without really an open process to make amendments to it, with the illusion of open debate. And now they come before us, again without hearings, in amendment form to this bill and say they want to have no funds go to enact provisions of the health care bill which was passed before. Let's talk about the consequences of your action here today. What would it mean to people in our country if this amendment were to prevail? It may prevail on this floor, which is driving itself into irrelevance with the amendment process that is here, but that's another subject. Let's talk about the subject of this amendment. Let's talk about what this means to America's families. Let's talk about a family that came before a hearing that we had earlier in January. We heard from Stacie Ritter. She has 12-year-old twins. When those adorable little girls were 4 years old, they were both diagnosed with cancer and faced years of treatment and recovery. Imagine if that happened in your family. Their mother said they were lucky that they did have health insurance, but the additional cost of the care for these children drove their family into bankruptcy. The children got well, thank God, but they had a preexisting medical condition for the rest of their lives--until this bill came along. And now their mother was pleased to testify they are not to be the objects of discrimination because they have a preexisting medical condition. They will not face annual or lifetime caps on the benefits they receive. These healthy young girls now will be able to proceed in a healthy way, not discriminated against. Or let's talk about Vernal Branch, a woman diagnosed with breast cancer 15 years ago. Ever since, she has struggled to find health insurance because even though she had cancer and for the moment is free of cancer and, God willing, will be forever free of cancer, she had a preexisting medical condition which meant that she would be discriminated against in terms of getting health insurance--until this came along. Vernal Branch told us that the Affordable Care Act represents protection from the uncertainty and fear that came from being diagnosed and being denied health insurance coverage because of a past disease. Passing this amendment would stop the reform and mean that 129 million Americans, like Vernal, 129 million Americans would lose coverage because of a preexisting medical condition. Do you understand what that means in the lives of these people? And to our seniors, the subject has been brought up over and over again about our seniors. Claudette Therriault and her husband, Richard, are seniors on Medicare. Richard is a diabetic, and his insulin alone costs nearly $1,000 a month. When they fell into the doughnut hole, they were forced to choose between defaulting on the loan of their home or paying for Richard's health. As Claudette put it, Well, we chose my husband's health. But changes made, that we made in this bill, are starting to change the doughnut hole so families aren't forced to choose between paying their mortgage or paying for their medicine. Passing this amendment would mean that over 2.7 million Medicare beneficiaries would again fall into the doughnut hole, and Medicare would no longer be able to pay for the annual checkup for 44 million seniors in our country. Mr. Kingston says that his children are old enough that they should be able to take care of themselves, even though they are under 26 years old. Bravo for you. But that's not the way it is for many young people across the country, even if they do have a job. You say they don't have insurance because they don't have a job. It may be news to you, but there are many, many, many working Americans who do not have health insurance. But they will under the Affordable Care Act. If this amendment were to pass, if it were to become law, immediately all of those children who can now be on their parents' policy, if their parents are willing, would lose their health insurance. With a job or without a job, these young people coming out of school are idealistic and ambitious. They want to follow their passions and their pursuits. That is what our Founders told them they could do-- life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These young people want a healthier life to pursue their happiness, to choose a job not based on the health benefits it may or may not provide, but to choose an occupation which addresses their aspirations--not ours, theirs. So I just want to repeat back to our colleagues something I heard them say over and over again. They said, we didn't read the bill. Well, we did. But clearly, you did not. And I urge you to read the bill, because if you did, you would see that the bill puts medical decisions in the hands of patients and doctors, not your favorite insurance company. You would see that it brings down the cost of prescription drugs for seniors. You would see that it ends the days of discrimination based on preexisting conditions and lifetime caps on the care of children and families. You would see that under this bill, no longer would being a woman be a preexisting medical condition as it is now as women are discriminated against in terms of price and access to insurance. You would see that it offers tax credits to millions of small businesses who choose to do right by their employees and offer insurance benefits. It was for all of these Americans that we acted. It is for them that we stand here today to oppose this amendment. And if you read the bill, you will see contrary--contrary to misrepresentations that were set forth by those who do the bidding of the health insurance industry in our country, you would see what the bill does. You would see that it is about innovation. It's about prevention. It's about a healthier America, not just health care in America. It's about using the technologies of the future. It's about bringing health care closer to people where they live to lower the cost, to improve the quality and to expand the access. You would see that it is a bill about the future. Instead of the misrepresentations about this, that, and the other thing which I don't even want to repeat here, you would see that this is transformative for our country because it gives people the liberty, again, to pursue their lives. So I would like to know how many of you read the bill? We read it over and over again, to each other, drilling down on different parts of it. So we know of what we speak when we come to this floor. And maybe if you knew more about it, you wouldn't be so quick to say--we do not want to allow children to stay on their parents' policies. We do not want to end discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions for our children. We do not want to begin to close the doughnut hole. We do not want to have preventive medicines without cost and copay for our seniors. And the list goes on and on. So that's what's happening here today. This is again, yet again, another example of our friends standing up for the insurance companies at the expense of the American people, standing up for the insurance companies at the expense of the health and well-being of our country. It is again an example of Washington, D.C. holding on to the special interest status quo. It is again this Congress saying to the American people, we are here for the special interest, we are not here for the people's interest. To Stacie, we are not here for your two daughters. For Vernal, we are not here for women and having being a woman being a preexisting condition. To Claudette and Richard, to say to them, too bad about your mortgage. If you can't pay your mortgage because you have to pay your medical bills, so be it. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, which is another manifestation of the ``so be it'' attitude of some in Congress at the expense of many in our country.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. To our valued, valued, valued friend, Jane Harman, to a proud Californian, to a great leader in our country, I know I speak for everyone in this Congress on this occasion when I say we have been proud to call you colleague and, again, for many of us, to value you as a friend. Jane's contribution to our country is one as a patriot. Not only for her great service in the Congress of the United States, but she and her family, her young Sidney, have been a source of strength to our country, whether it comes to security, our national security, the arts, or the education of the next generation. We all know that our first responsibility is to keep the American people safe. No one has done more in that regard than Jane Harman, and also in conveying the values of our great Nation throughout the world. The Woodrow Wilson Center is fortunate indeed to have her leadership. It will be a great combination. And so I say, Jane, we all choke up when we hear you say it's your last statement on the floor. We have all benefited from your wisdom. We congratulate you and send you off with great love, brave mama.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment presented by Congresswoman Eshoo on behalf of the public's interest, the people's interest, free elections, and a healthy, transparent, and open public discourse. More than one year ago, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate spending, secret unlimited corporate spending and influence over our campaigns and our public policy debates. In doing so in the Citizens United decision, they dealt a harsh blow to a fundamental principle of our democracy: That voters determine the outcome of elections, not moneyed special interests. In response, with bipartisan support in this House of Representatives, the House passed the DISCLOSE Act to require corporations to stand by their ads, the same way candidates do, and to keep foreign-owned entities from playing any role in our elections. The measure included a provision to keep government contractors and TARP recipients, beneficiaries of taxpayer support, out of our elections, preventing them from using taxpayer dollars for their own agendas. In the Senate, the Republicans blocked the DISCLOSE Act. Yet the value it represented, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, must remain a call to action for both parties in both Houses. Many of the new Members who are here campaigned on the principle that special interests play too big a role in our democracy. The American people have constantly called upon Congress to act in the people's interest, not the special interest. Today, we have another opportunity, thanks to Congresswoman Eshoo, to answer the public's call to action for transparency, for openness, for true Democratic elections. Thanks to Congresswoman Eshoo, we are highlighting this critical challenge to our democracy through an amendment to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not directed to Federal contractors who refuse to disclose their political expenditures. No dollars in this act can be used to enter into a contract with any corporation or company which refuses to disclose its political expenditures. They could be using taxpayer dollars to weigh in in a secret unlimited way in campaigns. I know that some of you may not want to receive this message, but it is a message that the American people have delivered to us over and over again--that they do not want special interests with their secret unlimited expenditures dominating our elections, and therefore dominating public policy in this Congress. So I am grateful to Congresswoman Eshoo for highlighting this critical challenge to our democracy, again through an amendment to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not directed to Federal contractors who refuse to disclose their political expenditures. With this measure, we could take one step forward in the fight to restore fairness to our political process and preserve the integrity of our elections by disclosing the unlimited, secret, endless flow of corporate dollars into campaigns. This Republican majority, many of you voted for the DISCLOSE Act as presented by Mr. Van Hollen in the last session. I hope that you will choose again between putting the corporate interest ahead, or choosing the public interest. It should not be a hard choice, but we will find out soon enough where you stand. I urge all of my colleagues to join Congresswoman Eshoo in continuing the fight for meaningful reform and to advance the cause of accountability in our campaigns. We owe it to the American people, we owe it to our Founders who invested so heavily in this democracy, and we owe it to the future. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to this year's recipients of the Medal of Freedom, our Nation's highest civilian honor; to individuals who have made our country stronger, our culture richer, our world more peaceful; to men and women who have helped shape our history and lay the foundation for a better future. In bestowing this honor, President Obama highlighted leaders of vision and courage. Each hails from a different background. Their fields vary, ranging from public service to civil rights, from the arts to athletics, from poetry to politics, from environmental activism to labor and business. Yet they share a common commitment to bold leadership, principled action, and the common good. In particular, I rise to recognize three recipients who I am privileged to call respected colleagues and friends. Congressman John Lewis is the conscience of the Congress, a true hero of our history, and an inspiration to all who serve with him and to every American. From the first Freedom Ride in South Carolina to a ``Bloody Sunday'' in Selma to the well of the House, he stood for his own rights, and extended the blessings of liberty to others. He sought equality for African Americans, and secured justice for all. Through non-violence and courage, he advanced our most basic rights--to vote, to speak, to assemble. John Lewis' story is a triumph for those whose souls cry out for freedom. No one is more deserving of this recognition. Ambassador Jean Kennedy Smith, founder of VSA, carries forward her family's torch of service, offering children and adults with disabilities the freedom to celebrate their artistic talents, and ushering in an era of peace and cooperation as our Nation's envoy to Ireland. For more than 35 years, she has worked to empower all people with disabilities to reach their full potential through the arts. She has long believed in the power of art to inspire and to connect individuals and communities of different backgrounds. Through her passion and her commitment, Jean Kennedy Smith has lived up to her own words: that ``art is central to what makes us fully human.'' John Sweeney has provided more than a strong voice for our middle class; he has fought for the freedom of our workers to organize, support their families, and earn a living wage. In California and nationwide, workers have never had a more resilient, more passionate champion than John Sweeney. His life's work is a tribute to fairness, equality, and opportunity for all. On behalf of working Americans--from the chambers of Sacramento to the halls of Washington, DC--when John Sweeney speaks out, America's leaders listen. In their lifetimes of service, today's recipients of the Medal of Freedom have played a central role in upholding the promise of a better future for all Americans and for our fellow citizens of the world. To them, I offer congratulations and gratitude.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I join her in opposing this rule and urging our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, ``no'' on the previous question, and ``no'' on final passage of the bill. Voting ``no'' on the previous question will enable us, if it succeeds, to bring to the floor our Build America Bonds legislation. Build America Bonds is supported, outside the Congress, across the board in a nonpartisan way by those who are building America--who are dredging our ports to enhance our trade, who are building our schools to educate our children, who are building our roads and highways and mass transit to get people to work and back, improving the quality of their lives; and in moving people and product again to work and to market, growing our economy. Creating jobs is the number one priority for Democrats. We have said that we will judge every measure that comes before this House by whether it creates jobs, how it strengthens the middle class and how it reduces the deficit. Indeed, that is what President Obama's budget released just yesterday will do. It will strengthen our Nation, invest in the future, help create jobs, and grow the economy, while reducing the deficit by $1.1 trillion. It sets us on a path, in President Obama's words, to ``out- educate, out-innovate and out-build the rest of the world.'' That is indeed what we must do. In terms of innovation and education, the President's budget is a commitment to competitiveness that will keep America number one. In terms of out-building the rest of the world, consider this quote from USA Today: ``Associated General Contractors, a trade group for the construction industry, estimates the plan could create about 5.4 million construction jobs and 10 million more jobs in related industries and the broader economy.'' President Obama's budget is a tough budget and it makes tough choices. I don't agree with everything that the President cut in the budget, but it is a statement of values that we must support. It makes cuts and tough ones in a responsible way. As President Obama said yesterday, we must live within our means and invest in the future. That is in stark contrast to the Republican legislation we debate today. With severe and indiscriminate spending cuts, it goes too far. This legislation will destroy American jobs while harming middle class families, young adults, seniors, and, yes, even our veterans. Since coming into office, Republicans have not put forward any initiatives to create jobs. Indeed, with this legislation, they are making matters worse. According to an independent study just released, the domestic cuts in this bill would destroy 800,000 public- and private-sector jobs. Democrats are saying to the Republican majority: Show us the jobs. Show the American people where the jobs are. Just today, Speaker Boehner said that if jobs are lost as a result of Republican spending cuts, ``So be it.'' So be it? We believe that our budget should be a statement of our national values. What is important to us must be included in our budget. Consider what the Republican legislation we debate today would do to diminish our investments in education, halt innovation, destroy good- paying American jobs and make our neighborhoods less secure. Indeed, not even homeless veterans are spared by the Republicans. Our Federal budget, as I said, must be a statement of our national values. We must ask ourselves, is this Republican legislation a statement of our values? Is it a statement of our values to undermine our commitment to educate the next generation of leaders and innovators? The Republican proposal cuts $800 per student in the maximum Pell Grant award; thousands of teachers would lose their jobs; and in your neighborhood, class size could increase. Is it a statement of our values to diminish our efforts to create green jobs and fight disease? This bill cuts $1.3 billion in investments to spur the clean energy economy of the future. It cuts more than $1.3 billion for cancer and other disease research. In terms of innovation and education, the President's budget is a commitment to competitiveness. This legislation is not. Is it a statement of our values to destroy jobs and undermine investments in our roads, schools and bridges to rebuild America? Tens of thousands of new construction jobs would be lost and 76 projects to upgrade our roads in your districts and bridges in 40 States would be canceled. I mentioned earlier what the general contractors said about creating millions of jobs in the industry and 10 million more jobs indirectly. Is it a statement of our values to diminish the public safety of our neighborhoods? There would be up to 3,000 fewer cops on the beat in your neighborhood and 2,400 fewer firefighters on the job in our communities coast-to-coast; 3,000 fewer cops on the beat and 2,400 fewer firefighters in our communities coast-to-coast. Is it a statement of our values to cut funding for homeless veterans? If there was one example of where this goes too far--think of it: Republicans want to eliminate $75 million from an initiative that offers housing vouchers to our homeless vets. It is a very effective initiative. Republicans want to cut it. And is it a statement of our values to deprive women of primary care? When it comes to health and education, Republicans put women and children last. Democrats and Republicans must work together to ensure our Nation lives within its means. That is for sure. We must continue to aggressively attack waste, fraud, and abuse, and we will subject every taxpayer dollar we spend to the toughest scrutiny, ensuring that the American people are getting their money's worth. But Republicans have not presented a responsible plan for addressing the deficit. We believe we can cut the deficit and create jobs. To do so, we must invest in the future. Democrats do not subscribe to Speaker Boehner's verdict that if jobs are lost in this continuing resolution, so be it. Maybe so be it for him, but not so be it for the people who are losing their jobs. Instead, we support President Obama's budget to out-innovate, out- educate, and out-build the rest of the world. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question, no on the rule, and no on the underlying bill. Let's put this aside and get on with the business the people sent us here to do: Creating jobs, reducing the deficit, strengthening the middle class, and protecting the American people.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership in calling up H.R. 11, the Build America Bonds, later. Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting to watch this debate because what you see here is that we are talking about jobs. The American people want us to create jobs now. And what you see on the floor of the House now today and tomorrow is a make-work project. The Republicans have no job initiatives; so they need to fill time, and they're filling time with a resolution that we all recognize the committees have the jurisdiction to do, and some of the committees already have. We should subject every dollar, every initiative to the harshest scrutiny to make sure it fills its purpose, that we bring common sense to what we are doing. But we don't need to spend 10 hours on the floor of the House because we have no job proposal on the side of the Republicans and make it look as if this is a job creation bill. This is a make-work product for Republicans who are without an agenda for job creation. However, we hope they will join us in renewing the Build America Bonds to build America to create jobs now. In every district nationwide, our constituents, many of them struggling without a paycheck, tell the same story. They're waiting for us to create jobs, to focus on jobs and economic growth before we do anything else. Today I rise to echo their call and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to act in the best interest of America's families and put people back to work. In his State of the Union address, President Obama encouraged us to do what it takes to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. In that statement he continued his job-creating initiative. From day one, President Obama has been a job creator. We had to dig our way out of a deep recession, but, nonetheless, the Recovery Act created or saved over 3 million jobs, and other initiatives like Cash for Clunkers and other initiatives that this Congress took, working with President Obama, spared us an even worse unemployment rate. Now, that isn't good enough if you don't have a job. And it isn't good enough for us who are responsible for creating them. And that is why the effort that the President started at the beginning of his administration, reiterated in his State of the Union address, starts with creating more jobs here at home, and in this Congress there should be no higher priority. Yet, the Republican leadership has not met that challenge. Since taking charge of the House more than 1 month ago, they have yet to propose a single jobs bill. They have yet to unveil a concrete plan, and Americans are still waiting. This week is no different. Instead of focusing on job creation, this Congress is spending 10 hours on the floor, a filler, as concrete evidence of the fact that they have nothing else to fill the time with, directing our committees to conduct oversight, a very appropriate instruction. The committees are already doing that. These committees don't need a partisan resolution in order to start their work, and this House does not need a long floor debate that only diverts us from our purpose, which is to create jobs. Instead, we should focus on investments that work, that create jobs, that build America and grow our economy. And that is why we are proudly putting forth the Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act. This legislation would leverage public dollars probably 40 to 1: For every public dollar spent, $40 of investment to strengthen the private sector and spur job creation at home by supporting projects to rebuild schools and transit projects. Last week we had a hearing on this subject following the President's State of the Union address and his pronouncements about innovation, education, infrastructure, et cetera. We had a hearing on infrastructure to which the Build America Bonds directly relates. A representative of the Society of Civil Engineers told us that our country has trillions of dollars of deficits; that our roads and bridges get D's and C minuses in terms of their safety and effectiveness. In addition, our water projects, some of them are ancient, made of brick and wood, and that's a health problem. In terms of innovation for the future, our investments in infrastructure such as broadband are also essential to the growth and creation of jobs in our country. And so there's every reason for us to do this in the best of times. But we're not in the best of times. And so in this not good time, as far as jobs are concerned, it's absolutely essential that we make a decision as a Nation to put forth the greatest social initiative ever, job creation. The initiative to Build America Bonds and leverage dollars for encouraging the private sector has the support of mayors, governors, and local businesses. It is good for taxpayers, using Federal investments, to unleash billions from private businesses in our neighborhoods. That's why Governor Martin O'Malley came to testify for this, and Mayor Nutter of Pennsylvania, giving us their direct experience on what a difference the Build America Bonds initiative, which was in the Recovery Act, makes, and which needs to be renewed. Most significantly, Build America Bonds keeps our promise to stay focused on jobs, and it helps put Americans back to work. Both parties agree that we must stay focused on reducing our deficit, and that's exactly what Build America Bonds do. You cannot achieve the goal of deficit reduction unless you invest in growth and job creation. Vigorous oversight is critical to that effort, and Democrats remain committed to doing our part. We are ready to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, duplication, and obsolescence in our budget, and we would subject every dollar, taxpayer dollar, to the harshest scrutiny. We are prepared to make tough decisions to get our fiscal house in order, but we will not sacrifice key investments that are helping our economy grow, our small businesses expand. And we need to make more investments in small business, not less, and help our workers find jobs. We said from the beginning of this Congress Democrats will measure every effort by whether it creates jobs, strengthens the middle class, and reduces the deficit. The resolution before us today does none of the above. I think it's interesting just to make a contrast between the first month of this Republican majority and our first days here in the Congress. Most of what we proposed is along the line, some of it signed by President Bush in a bipartisan way. H.R. 1 enacts the 9/11 Commission recommendations. This is 2007. The 9/11 Commission recommendations had not been enacted by the Republican Congress. We know our first responsibility is to keep the American people safe. H.R. 1, now the law of the land. Raise the minimum wage. Economic fairness. It hadn't been raised in over a decade of Republican rule, and we raised the minimum wage and it became the law. Making college more affordable, which is now the law of the land. We also had the Energy Independence Act as part of our Six for 06, much of which is signed into law by President Bush at the end of that Congress and his term. A couple initiatives did not become law. One of them was to remove the subsidies we give to Big Oil to give them an incentive to drill. Big Oil, which has made $1 trillion in profit over the last 10 years, does not need billions of dollars in taxpayer money to have an incentive to drill for oil. And so on this side, H.R. 1, instead of enacting the 9/11 Commission recommendations, lowering the minimum wage, making us more energy independent, making college more affordable, H.R. 1: repeal the health care bill. No prospect of success in doing that, no hearings leading up to it; but, nonetheless, a filler for the floor, red meat for those of the health insurance industry, which opposes giving leverage to America's patients and consumers by saying that they will not be deterred from having coverage because they have a preexisting medical condition, or keeping kids on their parents' policies until they are 26 years old. That's what they wanted to repeal. Again, red meat for the industry, for the special interests, no jobs for the American people. In the weeks ahead, we must renew our focus on job creation. Let's vote on bills that grow our economy through innovation, public-private partnerships, and tackle unemployment head on. Together, we can help Americans create jobs, rebuilding America in a very green way; and the technologies we will develop will make us and keep us number one, investing in transportation and manufacturing and clean energy and new technologies and industries and in small businesses. As my colleague Mr. Hoyer reminds us every minute: If we make it in America, America's families can make it in America. Let's set our path on doing that, instead of frivolously using 10 hours that are unnecessary, but they are for only one purpose: you have nothing else to offer. Today, we can keep our recovery on track and put Americans to work. I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, not that we don't think we should subject regulation to scrutiny, but because we think we shouldn't waste the public's time on this when it's already being done in committee and we should be having a debate, a lively debate, on what the best approach is to create jobs, grow the economy, reduce the deficit, and strengthen the middle class.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I thank her and you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this resolution to the floor to name a Federal courthouse in Yuma, Arizona, for John M. Roll. It will be called the ``John M. Roll United States Courthouse.'' How appropriate. Chief Judge Roll was a dedicated public servant, as our colleagues have referenced, serving as a Federal judge in Arizona, a State judge, and a prosecutor for the city, county, and at the Federal levels. Chief Judge Roll was a proud son of Arizona, moving to Arizona as a little boy, living there for the vast majority of his life, receiving his undergraduate and law degrees at the University of Arizona. Tragically, Chief Judge Roll was one of the six Americans who were taken from us during the horrific shooting in Tucson. He died while helping to save the life of Ron Barber, as has been mentioned, a staffer for Congresswoman Giffords--protecting him. He had just come from mass. I spoke to his wife, Maureen, the other day, and she said that was his regular routine on Saturday, to go to mass in the morning. He then went from there to see Congresswoman Gabby Giffords at Congress on Your Corner, and you know what happened next. He was going to talk to her about securing resources for the overwhelming court system. This was characteristic, as he dedicated his entire life to ensuring justice. He was known as a scholar of the law and a man of integrity. He is an example of the public servants who are doing serious and significant work in the judiciary every day. We had the honor, when we went to Tucson with the President to visit Gabby and to meet with some of the families, to also take pride in the fact that Justice Anthony Kennedy from the Supreme Court came on the trip, and Sandra Day O'Connor, who is from Arizona, was there that evening as well. They were joined by other justices who served with Judge Roll as a tribute to him personally and officially. It was wonderful to hear the beautiful statements that they made in our conversations about Chief Judge Roll, and they all sang the praises of Maureen Roll. So I hope it is a comfort to Maureen, to their three sons, and five grandchildren that so many people are saddened by their loss. We're praying for them at this very sad time. This courthouse will long stand as a tribute--and an appropriate tribute--to Judge Roll.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for calling this Special Order to give us the opportunity to join in a bipartisan way to celebrate and pay tribute to what would be the 100th birthday of President Ronald Reagan, and to do so with great pride as members of the California delegation. In August of 2006, the California legislature passed a law in a bipartisan way to have President Reagan representing our State as one of the two statues in the Capitol. Just a year-and-a-half ago, again in a bipartisan way, we celebrated the life of President Reagan by welcoming this statue to the Capitol. So for the last few years we have been building in a tribute to the President. It is impossible to talk about President Reagan and the optimism he had for life and the love he had for our country and his patriotism without talking about Mrs. Reagan. They shared one of the great love stories of our time. Mrs. Reagan in recent years has turned that love into action, speaking out powerfully about stem cell research. In doing so, she has saved lives, found cures, and given hope to millions. Today, as we pay tribute to President Reagan, we also honor Mrs. Reagan for her service to our Nation and for her love of her husband. On what would be his 100 birthday, we remember President Reagan's optimism for our Nation, always believing that America's best days are ahead, and we share his patriotism, his life of service to our country. To honor him, a Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission has been established, and I am pleased to recognize three House appointments-- two Republican, one Democrat--to the Reagan Centennial Commission and thank them for their service to the legacy of President Reagan: Congressman Gallegly, congratulations to you; Congressman Aaron Schock, one of the newest Members of Congress and youngest; and Congressman Silvestre Reyes, who proudly serves in that capacity. Again, as a Californian, we take great pride in the fact that Ronald Reagan was not born in California but from California, that his life of service and patriotism is recognized in the Capitol, and that today we send our deepest regards and respect to Mrs. Reagan in celebration of the President's 100th birthday.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 1-year anniversary of the passing of our dear colleague Congressman Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania. I rise to pay tribute to him. He was a giant of this Chamber, a legislator of unsurpassed talents, a soldier of extraordinary courage, a political servant, a public servant to the end. Those of us who served with him were honored to call him ``colleague.'' Those of us in this body, many of us, were privileged to call him ``friend.'' Colleague and friend. The outpouring of accolades that came forward at his passing was something quite remarkable, and I hope that it was a comfort and has been a comfort to his family. Certainly to those of us who worked with him, who knew his love of his district, who remember the way he held court in the Pennsylvania corner and gave out his blessing and his advice, Jack Murtha's wisdom, counsel, and knowledge will continue to inspire us all. To watch Jack Murtha legislate was to see a master at work. But more indicative of his character was to watch him communicate with our men and women in uniform, whether near the battlefield or at their bedside. He thanked them for their courage and listened to their concerns. He always answered their needs, responding to their calls for body armor, up-armored vehicles, and reliable radios, among other things. In those moments, he bonded with them based on his own personal military experiences. He was awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart himself. I will never forget the sparkle in Jack's eye when he would visit a wounded warrior, proudly standing by his bedside wearing a Steelers jersey, saluting him. The Nation saw Jack's courage on the battlefield and in Congress as he spoke out against the war in Iraq. And in doing so, he made the distinction between the war and the warrior. Always committed to our national defense, forever bound to the cause of our national security, Jack Murtha measured the strength of our country not only by the might of our military; he also measured it by the strength and well-being of our people. A much-decorated champion on the battlefield, he was a hero in advancing scientific research to fight against breast cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, as well as HIV and AIDS, to name a few. Today we remember him, always thinking of ``Semper Fi,'' the motto of the Marine Corps where Jack served proudly for 37 years, the motto of his life. To the end, he remained ``always faithful'' to God and country, to his hometown of Johnstown, and most of all to his wife, Joyce, his children, and his grandchildren. Patriot. Champion. Hero. Giant. Jack Murtha. We will never see his likes again. Again, I hope it is a comfort to his family that this 1 year later so many of us remember Jack Murtha and pray for his family.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Thank you for your leadership, Mr. Brady, and participating in this important discussion, as fundamental as our democracy, on the floor today. Mr. Chair, I rise today to urge this Congress to focus on our number one priority, the creation of jobs. This is a priority for the American people and for this Congress. We should be focusing on it. That was the message we heard last night from President Obama on this floor, who called on us to out-educate, out-innovate, and out-build the rest of the world. But instead of talking about job creation, this legislation we debate today will not create jobs, will not reduce the deficit, and will not strengthen the middle class. And those are the standards we should apply to any legislation that comes to the floor. Instead, it will put American elections more squarely into the hands of special interests. One year ago, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United opened the floodgates to unlimited, uninhibited, undisclosed special interest spending in our elections and unlimited special interest influence over our public policy debate. In response to the Citizens United ruling, Democrats worked to restore transparency, fairness, and accountability to our political process. Last Congress, with bipartisan support, the House passed the DISCLOSE Act to require corporations and donors to stand by your ad. Why are you running and hiding? And to keep foreign- owned entities from participating in our elections. But Senate Republicans blocked DISCLOSE. Even though it came out of the House with bipartisan support, Senate Republicans blocked DISCLOSE from even receiving an up-or-down vote, and now House Republicans are perpetuating a sneak attack on campaign finance reform. The result was clear in the last election. Special interest groups spent tens of millions of dollars more in the 2010 election than ever before. Again, undisclosed, without identification. There is a reason they don't want it disclosed. First of all, if the public knew who was paying for those ads, they would realize that their own personal interests were not being served, but the special interests. That's our experience in California, where we had a special interest initiative placed on the ballot by outside oil companies. And the strongest statement against the initiative was to see the disclosure at the bottom of the ad as to who was funding it. That spoke more eloquently to the fact that it was not in the people's interest. And the initiative was defeated. Eliminating the Presidential Election Fund, as this election would do, opens the door for foreign-owned entities and large corporations to enjoy an even greater role in the funding of political campaigns. In the past, Members from both sides of the aisle have supported legislation to reform, not eliminate, the public financing system. We should come together to ensure that the American people are heard and that they are not drowned out by special interest dollars. In our democracy--and God bless our Founders for establishing it-- voters determine the outcome of our elections. That's the way it should be. Special interests should not be determining the outcome of our elections. One year after the Supreme Court's decision undermined that fundamental American value, let's come together to fight on behalf of the public interest, to preserve the integrity of our political campaigns; and, therefore, to strengthen our democracy. And maybe we could, instead of undermining it here today, strengthen our country by creating jobs, by reducing the deficit, by strengthening the middle class, none of which is being done by this legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this effort to further empower the special interests over the people's interest.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, today a bill has come to the floor to repeal patients' rights, to put insurance companies back in charge of the health of the American people, and to balloon the deficit. Yesterday, in the one and only hearing on this very important bill, the repeal of patients' rights, Democrats heard from Americans benefiting from the health care reform. Nothing speaks more eloquently to the success of health care reform than their own personal stories. After hearing from seven of them yesterday, I said I wished the entire Congress could hear your stories. I wish our Republican colleagues would have had a hearing so they could hear from you the difference this has made in your lives and the difference it's making in the lives of millions of Americans. So I told them that I would share their stories with you. First, we heard from a young woman, Vernal Branch, who was diagnosed with breast cancer 15 years ago. The good news is that Vernal survived breast cancer. The not so good news is that she has a preexisting medical condition for the rest of her life. As she told us yesterday, the Affordable Care Act changed all that. What she said was the Affordable Care Act, ``represents protection from the uncertainty and fear that came with being denied health insurance coverage because of my past disease.'' She said, ``It represents freedom for my husband and me to make important choices about our lives and careers.'' Repeal of the patients' rights that is being proposed today would mean that 129 million Americans under the age of 65 like Vernal would lose their health insurance because they have preexisting medical conditions. Next we heard from a mom, Lori Bresnan. She has a 22-year-old son suffering from celiac disease. Still a student, he was facing the prospect of finishing school and entering the workforce without insurance but with a preexisting medical condition. Because of the law, Lori said, ``We are thrilled we have the option to keep him on our insurance in this interim when families so often struggle to keep their kids covered.'' In a similar vein, Alexander Lataille, a new graduate, struggling to find work in this economy even though he has two degrees, one in atmospheric science and one in social science--he wants to be a meteorologist--said that if he lost his ability to stay on his parents' insurance plan until age 26, he would be faced with a choice, ``either to pay my student loans or to get health insurance.'' He actually said, ``I would have little choice in the matter. I would need to pay down my college loans first and go uninsured.'' Repeal, as being suggested by our Republican colleagues, would mean that over 1.2 million young Americans like Lori's son and Alexander would lose their insurance coverage that they received through their parents' plans. We next heard from Ed Burke, who has testified before. He told me he had testified at the invitation of Speaker Gingrich years ago. For much of his life, Ed Burke has suffered from hemophilia. Two of his brothers do too. They have three brothers with hemophilia. Though he has health insurance, he has faced the constant worry that his treatments could surpass the plan's lifetime cap. Repealing patients' rights has a clear impact for Ed. As he said, ``I will lose the freedom to keep my job if efforts to repeal my protections are successful.'' Repeal, as is being suggested today, would mean that over 165 million Americans with private insurance coverage like Ed would again find themselves subject to lifetime limits on how much insurance companies will spend on their health care. Next we heard from a small businesswoman, a doctor. Dr. Odette Cohen is a small business owner from Willingboro, New Jersey. She said she will be better able to afford to give her employees health care coverage because of the reform. But she also told us a very personal story, it was very powerful, about her two cousins, Rhonda and Roger. Both of them were diagnosed with cancer about the same time. Rhonda worked for a large corporation. She had health care. She had an early intervention. And she received aggressive care and life-giving care. Roger, however, received only pain treatment in the emergency room. He worked for a small business that didn't have health insurance. So he couldn't have that early intervention. Rhonda is alive and well. Roger died. As Dr. Cohen said, ``The choice to work for a small business versus a large company should not be a choice between life and death in the United States. But it was the choice for my cousin.'' Repeal, as is being suggested today, would mean that more than four million small businesses like Odette's, Dr. Cohen's, would lose the opportunity to receive tax credits to provide health insurance to their employees. As we know, small businesses are the engine of job creation in our country. Odette told us that she wanted to attract the best talent, and she wanted to have health insurance for them in order to do that. We next heard from Claudette Therriault. She and her husband, Richard, are seniors on Medicare. Richard is a diabetic, and his insulin alone costs $1,000 a month. When Claudette and Richard fell into the doughnut hole, she said, ``We had to choose between defaulting on our loan for our home or my husband's health. Well, we chose my husband's health,'' she said. ``But changes made are starting to end the doughnut hole, so families like ours aren't forced to choose between staying healthy and paying the mortgage.'' Repeal would mean that over 2.7 million Medicare beneficiaries would again fall into the doughnut hole, and Medicare would no longer pay for an annual checkup for 44.1 million seniors. One of the most powerful testimonials--I say this as a mother and a grandmother--was from Stacie Ritter. Stacie has 12-year-old twin daughters, Hannah and Madeleine. Well, they are 11, almost 12. Can you imagine having these beautiful daughters, Hannah and Madeleine? They are 12 now. When they were 4 years old they were both diagnosed with cancer. Both of them, the twins. At 4 years old, diagnosed with leukemia, Hannah and Madeline faced stem cell transplants, chemotherapy and total body irradiation. But as their mother, Stacie, said, ``We were very fortunate at the time. My husband had full coverage through his employer.'' But because of the additional cost of health care, ``We ended up bankrupt, even with full insurance coverage.'' She told the stories about how the insurance company refused to do this, that and the other thing. But in any event, today Hannah and Madeline are healthy, happy 12-year-olds; but they still have a preexisting condition. 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 preventive care.'' The repeal suggested today would mean that 17 million American children with a preexisting medical condition could lose their health insurance because they have preexisting conditions. It would change everything for Hannah and for Madeline. In Congress, on behalf of these Americans, Democrats have made a firm commitment that we will judge every proposal that comes to the floor by whether it creates jobs, strengthens the middle class, and reduces the deficit. The repeal of patients' rights fails on all three counts. In fact, consider the cost to our Federal budget. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, repeal would add $230 billion to the deficit over the next decade. Just less than a year ago on this floor I quoted the late Senator Kennedy, many of us did, our inspiration in all of this, calling health care reform ``the great unfinished business of our society.'' By completing that great unfinished business of our society, now patients and their doctors are in charge of their health, not insurance companies. Because of the wonderful testimony that we had yesterday, which was representative of what Members of Congress have told the Rules Committee, told our colleagues and told us from our districts across the country, because of their stories of success of this bill only being in force for a few months--these provisions, most of them, only went into effect since September--because of them, because of Hannah and Madeline, because repeal would be devastating to so many Americans, I am pleased to join a broad coalition in opposing it, every organization from the AARP to the UAW and everything in between, the Catholic Health Association, Easter Seals and the NAACP. I think we should send a strong message today with a great vote against this repeal, which is so harmful to the health of the American people, which is so damaging to our fiscal health as well, and to have people know that we want to have what is best for them. We all want them to think that in order for them to have the same kind of access to health care that we do, we should say to them, ``Run for Congress.'' We want them to have it because Congress has acted upon their needs, their strengths and the strength of our country. I urge a ``no'' on the repeal.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and extend my condolences to him, Mr. Pastor, the senior member of the Arizona delegation, and to all of the members of the Arizona delegation. Madam Speaker, I am saddened, greatly saddened, to join the Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner, in coming together in sadness today to share our prayers and indeed our hopes for those who have lost so much because of the tragedy in Arizona involving our colleague, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, her staff, and innocent bystanders. Words are inadequate at a time like this, but I hope it is a comfort to those who have lost loved ones or who were injured on Saturday that so many people mourn the losses but also pray for the survivors and care for them at this very difficult time. I think the resolution in its description of what happened and the context with which it happened is an excellent resolution; and I hope people will read it, pray over it, and be grateful that we have this opportunity to comment on it. Today, we will say many prayers for our country and for the victims of this horrific event. We think of our colleague, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, fighting to recover, and the 14 others who were injured and remember the six who were killed. Their names are mentioned, and they are described in the resolution. The Speaker has mentioned their names, but I think acknowledging them bears repetition. How do you explain the death of 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green who had recently been elected to the student council in her school, Mesa Verde Elementary School, and the unbearable grief of John and Roxanna Green? Again, we pray for them and will carry Christina as an inspiration in our hearts. Dorothy Morris was married for more than 50 years to her high school sweetheart and was the mother of two. Federal Judge John Roll had just come from mass, which he attended every day. Phyllis Schneck, mother of three, grandmother of seven, and a great- grandmother. And I know that the New Yorkers like to hear she was a Giants fan, snowbird in Arizona carrying that dedication west. Dorwan Stoddard died shielding his wife, Mavy. Shielding his wife, Mavy. And as has been mentioned in the resolution, and we have mourned, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords' director of community outreach, Gabriel Matthew Zimmerman. One of his colleagues, his coworker, said: ``Gabe helped people for a living.'' As we honor the heroes who risked their lives to protect others, among them some who were injured, Patricia Maisch, for one, who grabbed the full magazine of ammunition from the killer as he attempted to reload. Just think of how many more we could have lost. Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zimudio tackled and subdued the suspect. Imagine the courage. And Daniel Hernandez, Jr., 20 years old--an intern who had just been on the job for 4 days. When he heard gunshots, he ran toward them--he ran toward them--and attended to Congresswoman Giffords, helping to staunch her bleeding with his own hands. We pray for the recovery of other members of Congresswoman Giffords' staff--Ron Barber, Pam Simon. We commend Pia Carusone and the entire Giffords staff for carrying on. Those heroes at the scene were joined by first responders from county and municipalities, arriving just 3 minutes after the first 911 call, who performed excellently, and in doing so, saved lives. We also pay tribute to the skilled professionals at Arizona's University Medical Center, whose role is ongoing in healing the victims of this tragedy. Tonight, the University of Arizona community joins with Tucson, the State of Arizona and, indeed, the entire Nation to acknowledge together Saturday's tragedy. Appropriately, this remembrance is called ``Together we thrive: Tucson and America.'' ``Together we thrive: Tucson and America'' will be an opportunity to grieve, and it will be a demonstration of our strength: a strength in community--a strength in community that was demonstrated last Saturday, a strength in community there that is ongoing. Tucson demonstrated its strength on Saturday when the city was full of heroes--ordinary citizens, victims, first responders--coming together in the spirit of community. Madam Speaker, our colleague Congresswoman Giffords was the primary target of this cowardly act; and as she recovers, we honor her as a brilliant and courageous Member of Congress. She has brought to Congress an invigoration--the thinking of a new generation of national leaders. As a businesswoman and State legislator, she came to Congress full of ideas, and we will long continue to be blessed by them. I look forward to when she is present with us on the floor. She has spoken out courageously and led boldly when the times have demanded it. It is especially tragic that those who lost their lives and those who were wounded had come together, as the resolution presents, to participate in an activity that reflects the best of our democratic tradition--a Representative of the people, of Gabby Giffords and her staff hearing directly from the men and women she represents. American democracy is founded on our commitment to a contest of ideas, not violence. Political disagreement and dissent must never violate our Nation's values, as expressed in the Constitution, of free expression, speech and peaceful assembly. Gabby spoke to that right here from the floor last week. In this hour of anguish, we seek a renewed commitment to hope, to civility, to peace among the American people. In many of our churches, we sing on Sunday and on other days of the week: let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin, not just with us but with me--with each of us, within each of us. In speaking as one House today, coming together in peace, we offer our thoughts and support, our prayers for the health of our colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and for all of the injured. We share the stories of the heroes of this tragedy and mourn those who perished. Let their actions and their memories be a blessing to our country. We don't know why God saw this to be necessary, but let this be something that we cherish as an opportunity as we mourn the heartbreaking horror of it all. This resolution is a fitting tribute. It is a great resolution. Please read it again and again. Carry those names in your heart. Remember each of these people because, again, a tragic accident took lives and wounded people in the free expression of ideas. May this resolution remind us of the urgent need to uphold our democratic values, to treat one another with courtesy and with respect, and to act as Congresswoman Giffords has always done and always will do--in a manner that reflects the best of American leadership. As our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of all who were affected, I want to call special attention to Commander, Navy Captain Mark Kelly, Gabby's husband, who has been a source of strength to all of us in this difficult time. We pray for him. We thank him for his and Gabby's service to our country. God truly blessed America with their leadership, with their service, and with their love for each other.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. ``Article I, section 1: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.''