Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on these very important issues before us that affect the lives of America's working families, the minimum wage, the pension bill, that are part of this rule. I also thank him for meaning what he says on the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us this evening is an insult to the intelligence of the American people. It is also an insult to the over 7 million Americans who depend on an increase in the minimum wage to live from paycheck to paycheck. It is a political stunt. It isn't a sincere effort to give an increase in the minimum wage. Republicans boast that they have held out for 9 years to keep the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour. That is their proud boast. Don't take it from me. Look at the public record. And so for them to come to this floor to try to give the illusion that they are sincerely trying to raise the minimum wage when they know that this bill is dead on arrival at the United States Senate is, again, an insult to the intelligence of the American people and the hard work of the American people as well. Just think of what it is to have a bill that says to minimum-wage workers, we'll raise your minimum wage, but only if we can give an estate tax cut to the 7,500 wealthiest families in America. This isn't about wealth. This is about super, superwealth. The only way you will get an increase in the minimum wage is if they can get a tax cut. If there has ever been a values debate on the floor of the Congress, this certainly must be it. This should be part of the values agenda of Congress, to reward work, to pay a decent wage to people so that they can raise their families. Democrats have a better idea. In our new direction for America, a new direction for all Americans, not just the privileged few, we make raising the minimum wage a key part of that. In addition to that, we also repeal what the Republicans have in place, which is an incentive for companies to send jobs overseas. But back to the minimum wage. A working family, two wage-earners working full time making $5.15 an hour bring home the sum total of $20,000 a year. They are below the poverty line. I almost hope that no children are listening to this tonight, because we tell children about the work ethic, that it is important to work hard, it is important in their lives, it is important to our country's competitiveness, it is an important strength, that the middle class is a part of our democracy in our country and that the middle class must grow and be expanded instead of having a lid on what some people can aspire to in our country. Our better idea also includes what the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) offered a few weeks ago on the floor of the House. He wasn't allowed to put it in motion here, they wouldn't even allow it to be heard, but we insisted on some of the debate, anyway. And that was a cut in the estate tax that affected 99.7 percent of all Americans who file the estate tax; 99.7 percent of all filers. This .3 percent, the 7,500 wealthiest families in America, must have done something quite wonderful for the Republicans that they wouldn't even allow that to be debated on the floor and that they hook it on to this increase in the minimum wage. Again, it is a political ploy. It's a joke. It's a hoax. It's a sham. It doesn't even rise to the level of that, so low is it in its intention. A couple of times in the past couple of months, I have quoted from the latest papal encyclical, ``God is Love.'' It was released April 2006 by Pope Benedict. I am just drawn to it all of the time because it talks about justice, and it talks about justice in a way that affects elected officials. In this encyclical, Pope Benedict says: ``St. Augustine wrote, `A state which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves.''' That is a pope quoting a saint. A saint: ``A state which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves.'' The Pope goes on to write, and in this part of the encyclical he is talking about the responsibility of elected officials and those responsible for governing, he says, ``How do you define justice? What is justice?'' He warns of the danger, this is the Pope, warns of the danger of the ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests. The dazzling effect of power and special interests and the ethical blindness that that causes. Does that sound familiar, my colleagues? Can you relate to that in this body? Is that not at work here tonight? One of our colleagues said, this is about truth. I think many of our colleagues have. Yes, this is a moment of truth. With all of these votes of this kind, we define ourselves as a Congress. We define ourselves as a country. When the American people listen in to this debate, we are either relevant to their lives or we are not. And I think no place, well, the competition for this honor is so keen that it is hard to tell which is the worst piece of legislation the Republicans have brought to the floor, but this certainly ranks right up there, to prove how out of touch the Republicans are with the American people, how out of touch they are with people, the middle class, who are sweating it out this summer in more ways than one. Sweating out the price of gasoline at the pump, a bill born of corruption in this body. Seniors sweating it out in terms of paying for prescription drugs at the pharmacy where middle-income seniors are paying more for their prescription drugs. Sweating it out in terms of the college tuition that they are going to have to paste together to send their children to college while the Republicans pass legislation that gives tax breaks to the 7,500 wealthiest families in America and freezes Pell Grants and also cuts billions of dollars out of the student loan program. Paycheck to paycheck, trying to make ends meet, to make the future better for their children. But this Congress proves over and over again it has no relationship to that challenge. None. And so I hope my colleagues in this moment of truth will remember the words of His Holiness when he quoted a saint, St. Augustine, who many years ago said: ``Unless government promotes justice, you're just a bunch of thieves.'' I can't think of a more appropriate analogy than that for what is happening here today. We are robbing the future of America's families who are struggling for a better future for their children in order to give a tax cut of $800 billion. Not only is this a burden to these low-income families; they are saying to them, your children and future generations and everyone alive and paying taxes today will be paying for $800 billion added to our national debt. Values? Foisting that onto our children and onto the American taxpayer. Values? Putting a sham bill together to give political cover for the cowards who won't stand up and bring a clean bill to this floor to see where the choice would be? I have no doubt that there are some right-thinking Republicans who would support a clean increase in the minimum wage. But we will soon find out when the motion to recommit is brought to the floor later this evening which will have a clean increase in the minimum wage and will also have the extenders. Interesting about the extenders. The Republicans are using them as an excuse to get votes for their political ploy they have here tonight. They have been expired for 6 months. They have needed to be extended for 6 months. But the Republicans always want to wheel them out so they can attract votes to, as Mr. Rangel called, their stinkeroo of a bill. But, my colleagues, this is deadly serious. We are here to get the job done for the American people. We are not here to give money, a transfer of wealth, a transfer of wealth, to the wealthiest people in America. And who pays the price? The middle class. Well, if we are going to survive as a democracy, a healthy democracy which is a model to the world, it is about time we understood that central to that democracy is a thriving, expanding middle class whose job we are here to do. Let us have tax cuts for them, not for the wealthiest people in the country and send the tax bill to the middle class. Let us remember the words of His Holiness, ``promote justice.'' Oppose this rule. Oppose this bill. And let us get serious about helping the American people.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for yielding, for his tremendous leadership in making our country strong and respected throughout the world. I am pleased to join him in paying tribute to the chairman of the committee, Henry Hyde. What a wonderful honor that this bill is named for him. He, too, has been a champion to promote a values-based diplomacy for our country. We have all fought many years with him in support of human rights throughout the world. This is probably one of the last bills that will be completed on issues that relate to national security and the respect with which we are held in the world. So appropriately, it is named for Mr. Hyde. Both Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos have presented the House with legislation that is a vast improvement, frankly, over the bill that the President requested earlier this year, and it is a tribute to their leadership that we can all come together on this legislation this evening. The bill before us establishes a two-step process for the India nuclear agreement. It is a process and legislation, which I support, that allows Congress to reserve final judgment on the agreement until the specifics are known. It requires that before Congress votes on the agreement, India and the International Atomic Energy Agency will have had to establish a process through which IAEA safeguards will be applied forever to India's civilian nuclear facilities, programs and materials. Therefore, if an agreement is ultimately approved, Congress will retain the ability to monitor it through the required annual reports on U.S. nonproliferation policies in South Asia and on the implementation of the U.S.-India nuclear deal. This legislation is important because it recognizes that the prospect of greater nuclear cooperation with a nation that has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty raises serious concerns. As one who came to Congress intent on improving international nonproliferation regimes, I appreciate those concerns. One of the most significant, the issue of the production by India of fissile material, is addressed by an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). The Berman amendment, which I support, conditions the provision of nuclear fuel by the U.S. on a presidential determination that India has halted fissile material production. But even if the Berman amendment is not adopted, I hope that the agreement that will be presented to Congress for approval when negotiations are concluded contains a promise by India to halt the production of fissile material. Such a promise would improve the agreement and go a long way to convincing those who cannot support today's legislation that their concerns have been heard and that the Bush administration and the government of India has sought to respond to them. The legislation before us clearly endorses the philosophy behind India's nuclear initiative; a judgment that security would be promoted by bringing India into the nuclear nonproliferation mainstream. On balance, I believe that judgment to be correct, and I thank you, Mr. Lantos and Mr. Hyde, for putting that balance here. Although not bound by the NPT, India has a strong record of supporting nonproliferation goals. They have never ever violated the NPT. India has demonstrated by its actions a commitment to safeguarding nuclear technology. That commitment will be strengthened by India's adherence to the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines and the Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines as required by the nuclear initiative. A close relationship with the democratic India is critical for the United States. There is a wide range of significant issues on which our shared values and shared interests will enable productive collaboration for the betterment of the world. This legislation reflects the strength of our current relationship with India and our hopes for its future. It is an expression of trust on matters relating to nuclear technology based on 3 decades of experience. I urge my colleagues to support it. Even though there may be some questions and some amendments which may pass or not prevail today, on balance, I believe this legislation as presented here is worthy of our support. I hope that the agreement that comes back to us is one that will be without controversy and will again be a reflection of the close bond between India and America. It was but a week ago when we were all gathered here to extend our sympathy to the people and the government of India because of the tragedy at Mumbai. Many of us expressed the love that we have for India and appreciation for the gifts that India has given to America, a vibrant dynamic Indo-American community which has contributed enormously to the economic success of our country and to our competitiveness in the world. They have also contributed much to us in terms of our own social justice. We owe much to India as the source of nonviolence as a philosophy, espoused and practiced by Mahatma Gandhi. I said last week that when Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and Coretta Scott King went to India to study nonviolence, they received a gift from India that would serve our country well and be important and fundamental to our own civil rights movement; that nonviolence was a strength that again improved America, and for which we all should be indebted to India and we should never forget. I also personally join Mr. Lantos, because I know of his history on the subject in expressing appreciation to India for its hospitality to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, a great leader in the world. And I am enormously appreciative of the fact that his, I don't want to call it government in exile, but whatever the term of art is, in Darussalam in India. The list goes on and on, we can name them over and over, again whether it is again the contributions of the Indo-American community, the philosophy that sprang from India that is so important to us, or the support for human rights. But on target for today is India's commitment, which it has never violated, to support the principles of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which although it is not a party to that treaty, has been a supporter of its principles. Again, for that reason, I hope that all of our colleagues will vote in support of this legislation so that we can go to the next step and that we can go into the future continuing a long and beneficial relationship with India for us all.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, the members of the New York delegation have risen today with great sadness and with great pride in the life and service and leadership of our former colleague, Tom Manton. When Mr. Rangel announced to the body earlier this evening the sad news of Mr. Manton's passing, which, of course, has been heralded in the press because he was a big figure in New York, it brought back many memories for those of us who served with him. A big, strong Democrat, he served with great pride in this body as a way to serve the people of his district, which he loved and took great pride in. He worked in a very bipartisan way to get the job done for them. I had been a former Chair of the California Democratic Party over 20 years ago, so we shared that commitment to removing obstacles of participation in the political process through the Democratic Party organization which he led with great pride for so much of his political life. His policy contributions for his district are legendary, and that is why he was unbeatable until he just decided he wasn't going to run again, and we all know of the legacy that he sent us in the great service of Mr. Crowley in the Congress. Every person in America who cares about the environment in our country owes Mr. Manton a debt of gratitude. During seven terms in Congress, Mr. Manton was an important figure on the reauthorization of the Superfund program, which promotes the cleanup of uncontrolled and abandoned hazardous waste sites. It is very, very important pioneer work that he did there. It might be of interest to some to know that when he came to Congress, he came to replace Geraldine Ferraro, who was designated to be the Vice Presidential candidate. So there is a proud tradition from this district for many years; and that tradition, of course, continues with Mr. Crowley. Tommy Manton was a proud Democrat and a proud Irishman, in his personal life as well as his public service. He did a great deal as the cochairman of the Congressional Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs. He helped persuade President Clinton to meet with Gerry Adams, the president of the Sinn Fein, the political arm of the Irish Republican Army. That was really a step forward in bridge building, trying to find solutions and getting the job done. He served as a flight navigator in the Marine Corps. He was, again, a very patriotic American, who served our country in so many arenas, in local government, in the Congress of the United States, as a Marine, as a community leader, and in the Democratic Party. On behalf of all of the Democrats, I know everyone in the Congress extends their deepest sympathy to his family, of whom I know he was very, very proud; to Diane, his wife, his widow now, and to their children, Cathy, Thomas, Jr., John and Jeanne. I hope it is a comfort to you that so many people mourn your loss and are praying for you at this sad time, and that it is a comfort to you that these New Yorkers take such pride in the life, leadership and service of Tom Manton, who himself was a proud New Yorker, a proud Irishman, a proud American.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on July 19th of this year, Tim Friedman achieved a milestone that Members ever reach: 30 years of service in the United States House of Representatives. Since he first arrived in Washington in 1976, Tim has been a denizen of the House. In his first position, as Doorkeeper, he worked to keep the House floor and its Members secure. He also served the House Sergeant at Arms, until his formidable talents were recognized by Tip O'Neill in 1985, and he was appointed Assistant Manager of the House Democratic Cloakroom in 1985. Tim Friedman has become part of the history of this institution: he was the last ever Democratic pair clerk--a position that was discontinued in 1995. He has served under five Speakers--and spent 19 years in the majority and nearly 12 years in the loyal opposition. Tim has seen many Members come and ago, and been both a colleague and friend to all. His skills in the cloakroom are only matched by his skills on the golf course: I know that members of my caucus will be particularly relieved that because of his retirement, Tim will not be competing in any more House golf tournaments. But he will have time to hone his game; Tim is retiring to Wallace, North Carolina, where he will live on a 36-hole golf course. As we salute Tim, we must also recognize his wife Colleen. Colleen is also part of the House of Representatives family--she is the daughter of Congressman Joe Early. As we all know, it is hard to balance a job here with a life at home, and today as we salute Tim for his dedication, we are appreciative of the sacrifice Colleen has made. Upon his retirement, George Washington said, ``I am once more seated under my own vine and fig tree . . . and hope to spend the remainder of my days in peaceful retirement, making political pursuits yield to the more rational amusement of cultivating the earth.'' Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to wish Tim Friedman and Colleen a similarly peaceful retirement.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding and for his just relentless championing of the rights of American workers. Who are we here for, after all? Mr. Cardin has been a supporter of free trade agreements for a long time, and that doesn't mean that you can't do that and also be here to be the voice of American workers. If any of them tune in and listen to this debate on the floor, they know clearly who speaks for them. Thank you, Mr. Cardin, for championing this issue. Thank you, Mr. Rangel, for your incredible leadership, time and time again to say, yes, we are open, we understand the benefits of free and fair trade. We want them, though, to emphasize the fairness of it to American workers. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Oman Free Trade Agreement, and it is with the greatest respect for the gentleman from Virginia that I respectfully disagree with his comments. And as Mr. Cardin has said, the Sultan, with all due respect to the Sultan, his decree has not done what we need to have done in this trade agreement. Democrats realize that our economic future rests upon our ability to open new markets for U.S. goods and services so that we can continue to capitalize upon the innovative spirit that has long distinguished America. New markets translate into new, high-paying jobs and opportunities for American workers, businesses, and farmers. In the past, trade policy has been a bipartisan endeavor, a common effort to expand opportunity for America's businesses, again workers and farmers. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has veered in the opposite direction, and so has the Republican leadership in this Congress, and a bipartisan agenda has now become a lofty goal rather than an indisputable reality, which it should be. The Bush administration has failed to enforce fundamental worker rights and failed to open large markets for U.S. goods. Once again America's middle class is paying the price for misplaced Republican priorities. In addition to that failure, in terms of the global economy, this administration and the Republicans in Congress support incentives to businesses to take jobs offshore. How is that a good idea for America's workers? We are going to engage in these trade agreements that do not have core labor principles in them that lift the standards of the workers in the country; for example, Oman; or, of course, lift the living standard of American workers here, which is our primary responsibility. And at the same time, these same people who brought you these free trade agreements which do not enforce core labor principles and are unfair to American workers, these same people advocate incentives for companies to take jobs offshore. That is why on the first day of Congress, Mr. Rangel will come to the floor, God willing, if the Democrats take power, he will come to the floor on the first day and repeal those incentives to companies to take jobs offshore. One small step for American workers. Democrats have a long history of supporting free and fair trade. Enforceable labor rights that follow basic core principles are a crucial part of ensuring that American companies and workers will not be disadvantaged by unfair competition from countries that do not adhere to the core standards. Core ILO, International Labor Organization, standards ensure that our trading partners abide by the most fundamental standards of common decency and fairness. Not only are core labor rights a matter of decency and fairness, but they are also in our national economic interest. Basic enforceable, with the emphasis on enforceable, labor protections are critical to building a strong middle class in Oman, raising the disposable incomes so that they can buy American products. Our trade deficit is likely to exceed last year's recordbreaking deficit of $717 billion. Every day we have $2 billion more in goods coming into the country than going out. This is unbelievable. Over $2 billion more a day in goods and services coming in than going out. I do not know what is free and fair about that. I do know America's middle class is paying the price. The Republican trade agenda has failed to break new ground by opening large markets for U.S. goods. Instead, they have these little tiny agreements that establish a precedent and erode core labor principles, and they have not opened the large markets that are crucial to creating new jobs for American workers. Despite a record trade deficit, the Bush administration has focused on negotiating trade agreements with countries where the opportunities for U.S. companies are limited. The Oman Free Trade Agreement will have negligible impact on our balance of trade, and that is why it can wait. It is just not a big deal. It can wait until these core principles are in the treaty and not just by decree, which they are not, but if they were, could be changed tomorrow. This year U.S. trade with Oman will be about $1 billion, just .04 percent of the total U.S. trade. Democrats recognize the importance of engaging Oman, but we must do much more in terms of fairness. Democrats are committed to addressing the challenges of increasingly competitive global markets. Our success depends on our ability to innovate new products and to create new markets, new markets, overseas for those goods and services. That is why Democrats have put forth our innovation agenda, our commitment to competitiveness to keep America number one. We will secure America's continued leadership and innovation and unleash the next generation of discovery, invention, and growth. And in that way, we will be preeminent in the world's markets; but not, but not, if our hands are tied by the precedent established by these little agreements. Again, in addition to our innovation agenda and fairness to American workers, businesses and farmers, on that very first day, in addition to raising the minimum wage, Mr. Rangel will call for the repeal of incentives of jobs to go overseas. Just think of it. If you are a middle-income person in middle America, our technological base, our manufacturing base, our industrial base in those parts of the country are eroding. Jobs and services are going overseas with the help of tax incentives of this Republican administration and this Republican Congress, and then we engage in free trade agreements that do not even pay the respect due to American workers to have core labor principles, a minimal standard, the ILO standard. A minimal standard. This is not anything big. And by the way, we are not asking for anything different for labor, for America's workers. This is not special treatment. What Democrats are asking for is the same thing that the Bush administration is giving to other industries: the right to enforce the provisions. Businesses have that right in the deal, but workers do not. It is just not fair. It is just not fair. So we want to take our country in a new direction, passing free trade agreements that do expand our markets, spur economic growth, raise the living standard of the United States and abroad, and have enforceable provisions that are fair to American workers. Unfortunately, this trade agreement fails on all of these counts, and that is why I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida for his leadership on this important issue, and for his eloquence on it as well. Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I have really good news for you. The pledge to the flag and the words ``under God'' are not in trouble. They are very safely ensconced in the Pledge of Allegiance, which, as our colleague mentioned, we pledge every single day that this body comes to order, school children across the country, the beginning of meetings all over our country. The profession of our pledge to the flag, and one Nation under God, is safe and it is sound. That is why it is hard to understand why you would take up the time of this Congress to bring something to the floor that is so out of touch with the concerns of America's middle class. We are talking about democracy here and the intentions of our Founding Fathers. Essential to a democracy is a strong, thriving and growing middle class. The policies of this Congress, this Republican Congress, undermined the security and the size of that middle class. That is why, if you are at home with someone who is sick, or a child home from school, and you happen to turn on the TV, and you see the proceedings of Congress, what would an American think? What they are doing is totally irrelevant to my life, totally irrelevant to my life, whether it is the health of my family, the education of my children, the economic security of our family and the safety of my neighborhoods. Why isn't Congress addressing the concerns of America's great middle class? Why, indeed, are the Republicans taking up the time, day in and day out, with their proposals which have no prospect of success, which have no basis in reality, and which, in fact, undermine the Constitution of the United States which each one of us takes an oath of office to support and defend. Why, instead of having this conversation, which as Mr. Hastings and others have said, this is not at risk. We all agree. One Nation under God. What a beautiful pledge. We all agree. So rather than addressing the concerns of the American people, we are making here an all-out assault on the Constitution of the United States, which, thank God, will fail. Court-stripping. Court-stripping. Fundamental to our democracy is the separation of powers, a system of checks and balances, but this Republican Congress says that Congress should strip the courts of the power to be a check and a balance to the other branches of government. They have said in their meetings that Marbury v. Madison, which established precedent of judicial review, was wrongly decided. Over 200 years of precedent on judicial review they say was wrongly decided, and therefore, they can strip the courts of the ability to review the constitutionality of an act of Congress. That means by a simple majority, and if the other body were willing and the President were to sign, by a simple majority they can amend the Constitution with bills that are not constitutional but have no court to judge that constitutionality. It is absolutely wrong, and Justice O'Connor said recently on this subject that this was brought up at the time of desegregation. They tried to use it then. Thank God, thank God, thank you, God, they failed. Thank God they failed. What we should be talking about today is what is important, the issues that are important to America's middle class. Again, when people ask me what are the three most important issues facing the Congress I say the same thing: our children, our children, our children; their health, their education, the economic security of their families, which includes the pension security of their grandparents, the healthy environment and safety of the neighborhoods in which they live, a world at peace in which they can thrive. But turn on the television and tune in to C-SPAN and see what is going on in Congress, and what do you see? The politics of divide and distract. It is really sad, as Mr. Kennedy said. It would be almost a joke but it is just really not that funny. So let us instead vote, when we have a chance to vote on this rule, against the previous question; and that vote will be a vote to increase the minimum wage. That is relevant to the lives of the American people. In fact, it is relevant to the lives of millions of American people, many of them single moms. Many of them single moms. Right now, minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. If you work full time at the minimum wage you make about $10,000. If you are two wage earners in a family and you both work full time and make the minimum wage, you make $20,000. You are below the poverty line for a family of four. Imagine two wage earners working full time. Is that fair? Is that just? I do not think so. This Congress had no hesitation to give itself a raise over the past 9 years, $30,000 in raises. That $30,000 would take a minimum wage worker 3 years to earn just the increase in salaries that Congress gave itself. So there is no justice in what we are talking about here. I quoted another debate on this subject, the recent encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI. This is a quote from Cardinal McCarrick, quoting the Pope quoting a saint. In his encyclical, ``God is Love,'' Pope Benedict talks about the responsibilities of politicians, people in government, and he quotes Saint Augustine who said that unless politicians, people who are in the public domain, are there to promote justice, they are just a bunch of thieves. Saint Augustine said, unless politicians were there in office to promote justice, they were just a gang of thieves. The Pope quoted Saint Augustine and the cardinal quoted the Pope in his farewell address to us. It is true, it is true, how can we be talking about justice, how can we be talking about our Constitution, how can we be talking about under God if we do not even meet the simple test of fairness to America's middle class, which is central to our democracy? How can we be talking about that here when people are suffering in our country? They do not know how they are going to pay for their health bills, and millions of them do not have health insurance. In fact, 6 million more people in America do not have health insurance since President Bush became President, a 70 percent increase in the cost of health insurance since President Bush and this Republican Congress went to work on the American people. So the injustices are there. The opportunity is here, and it is being ignored because the priority of the Republicans in Congress is to distract and divide the country. It is time for the politics as usual to end. It is time for this House to be the marketplace of ideas that our Founders intended, where we come to do the work of the American people, where they tell us to make laws to grow our economy, to make our country strong militarily, and then the health and well-being of the American people, make our country strong in the unity and the reputation that we have in the world. Instead, we have this freak show one day after another of a rollout of distractions and divisions that is unworthy of this House, unworthy of the American people and certainly does not honor the vision of our Founding Fathers, the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform or the aspirations of our children. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and that vote will be a vote to increase the minimum wage, which is, again, $5.15 an hour. It has not been increased in 9 years. While the price of gas, food, health care and everything else has gone up, the purchasing power has gone down. Let us not be a bunch of thieves. Let us be a deliberative body that is here to promote justice. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote ``no'' on this court-stripping bill which dishonors the oath of office that we all take.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, thank him for his extraordinary leadership in making foreign policy for our country that is values based, and it makes us safer. My compliments, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and Mr. Wilson of South Carolina for bringing this important legislation to the floor. Thank you, Mr. Leach, for your leadership on this as well. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of it. I wish this resolution expressing the condolences of yet another terrorist attack was not necessary. The people of the United States know only too well the shock and sorrow experienced by the people of India on July 11. We grieve with them and share their resolve to defeat the forces of evil who would perpetrate such heinous and, yes, cowardly acts. We also salute the bravery of the millions of residents of Mumbai, who got back on those commuter trains the day after the attacks, refusing to alter their lives and thereby concede even a little to the terrorists. At a time like this, when we are commending the people of India for their courage and expressing the sympathy and condolences of our constituents to the people and the Government of India, it gives us pause to think about how much we owe India. We in the United States came through, a generation ago, a civil rights movement that was inspired by the spirit of nonviolence which was led in India by Mahatma Gandhi. Our own Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King visited India to learn about nonviolence, and we all know what a tremendous impact it had on succeeding in advancing civil rights in our own country. We will be forever in the debt of India for that magnificent contribution to our own social progress in the United States. And nobody knows better than Mr. Lantos the debt of gratitude we owe India for its hospital to His Holiness the Dalai Lama. When I was a brand new Member of Congress, one of the first meetings I was invited to was by Mr. Lantos to meet His Holiness. He talked about his plan for Tibet. And it has been rough sledding since then, but the Government of India has been a friend to all who are concerned about human rights and respect for the dignity and worth of every person and in the person of His Holiness, a man of peace, a man of balance, a man who would condemn this kind of violence. So India has certainly taken the lead in the nonviolence that influenced our own civil rights movement and the hospitality extended to His Holiness in so many ways as the largest democracy in the world. It is just that democracy and that freedom of movement that, of course, made them a target of these cowards. So, again, I express the love of freedom and commitment to a democracy that the United States and India share. We will stand together against those who value neither and whose disdain for human life is evidence of the shallowness of the agenda they seek to advance. The resolution before us is a strong testament to the shared values and the friendship which binds the United States and India. I urge its overwhelming adoption by this House, and again, thank Mr. Crowley for his leadership in bringing it to the floor.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I salute her for her outstanding leadership and stewardship of this bill and her leadership on this issue so important to America's families. I also commend Congressman Castle of Delaware for his courage and his leadership as well. Mr. Speaker, every family in America, indeed every person in this room and in this gallery, is just one diagnosis or one phone call away from needing the benefits of the embryonic stem cell research. Today with his veto, President Bush dashed the hopes of so many Americans who were praying for this legislation and the cures that it can bring. Imagine, the first veto of this President, and it is for a bill vetoing a bill that has the miraculous power to cure. The Latin root of veto, the Latin translation of veto means ``I forbid.'' President Bush has said today, I forbid allowing the best and brightest minds to pursue the science that they believe has the most promise and potential to cure. President Bush says, I forbid bringing embryonic stem cell research under NIH, ensuring the strict controls and stringent ethical guidelines that only NIH can ensure and impose. President Bush says, I forbid giving our scientists the opportunities they need to ensure that our Nation remains preeminent in science. Today, I am hoping that the people's House will reflect the American people's will and overturn this short-sighted action, and instead of saying ``I forbid,'' say ``yes'' to the American people. The opponents of this legislation believe that this is a struggle between faith and science. I believe that faith and science have at least one thing in common: Both are searches for truth. America has room for both faith and science, and thank God for that. The Episcopal Church, in its letter in support of this legislation says, ``As stewards of creation, we are called to help mend and renew the world in many ways. The Episcopal Church celebrates medical research, and this research expands our knowledge of God's creation and empowers us to bring potential healing to those who suffer from disease and disability.'' It is our duty here in Congress to bring hope to the sick and the disabled, not to bind the hands of those who can bring them hope. I believe, as Representative Emanuel Cleaver has said, I believe that God guided our researchers to discover the stem cell's power to heal. Overturning the President's cruel veto will enable science to live up to its potential to answer the prayers of America's families. According to many scientists, including 80 Nobel Laureates, embryonic stem cell research has the potential to unlock the doors to treatments and cures to numerous diseases, and we have spoken about them all day, including diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease, multiple sclerosis, cancer and spinal cord injuries, to name a few. Many of our colleagues both here on the floor and other venues, have shared their personal stories, whether it is a condition of their children or an affliction of their parents. Their generosity of spirit and generosity to share those stories gives us testimony as to the need for this embryonic stem cell research, and it fills a void in science that we know can be filled. I believe that if we know a scientific opportunity for cure, we have a moral responsibility to support it. Mr. Speaker, this bill will save lives and help us find the cures for diseases in a shorter time span. It is all about time, after all, how much time people have, the quality of their lives in that time frame. This bill will enable science to live up to the biblical power to cure. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the override and override the President's cruel veto.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, Mr. Lantos, it is very hard to capture the words to express the difficulty that Israel is facing now for all of us. But for you, it must be particularly difficult. I know that you are an idealist, I know that you are a realist. I thank you for your leadership. We could not be better served than by having you here at this very difficult time for the world really, especially difficult time for Israel. Thank you for your leadership. And at this very difficult time for the State of Israel, this resolution reaffirms our unwavering support and commitment to Israel, and condemns the attacks by Hezbollah. I support this resolution because I believe that the seizure of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah terrorists was an unprovoked attack, and Israel has the right, indeed the obligation, to respond. Hamas and Hezbollah are committed to the destruction of Israel. What more do you need to know? It is clear that Iran and Syria aid have helped the effort to achieve that goal. The United Nations Security Council has already spoken on the issue of dismantling Hezbollah. The Security Council's resolution must be enforced by the international community. Syria has repeatedly demonstrated it is a rogue state, which is why we passed Mr. Rangel's Syria Accountability Act more than 2 years ago. However, we must now fully implement all sanctions spelled out in that legislation. In order to address the Iranian support of the terrorists, I urge the passage of the Iran Freedom Support Act. We must ensure that Iran and Syria understand the depth of commitment of the United States to the State of Israel by using every diplomatic tool at our disposal. For a time in recent years, there was a hope that a corner had been turned in the Middle East. The Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, the emergence of a democratic process in Lebanon, and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza were hopeful signs that the future could be different from the past. Those indications of progress, however, were seen as threats by Hezbollah and Hamas, organizations that have a greater interest in maintaining a state of hostility with Israel than improving the lives of the people they claim to represent. Now, the lives of those people and tens of thousands of others in the Middle East, including thousands of American citizens in Israel and Lebanon, have been put at risk by the aggression of Hamas and Hezbollah. As the fighting rages, it is imperative that the combatants take whatever steps they can to lessen the risk to innocent civilians. The world knows too well the horrors of war. It also knows that there are ways to offer some degree of protection to civilians, and it is right to insist that those ways be chosen. Using civilians as shields by concealing weapons in civilian areas, as done by Hezbollah, is inconsistent with affording those protections. The resolution we are considering properly condemns that action. Protecting civilians also means getting our citizens out of harm's way as quickly as possible. I urge the administration to expedite its efforts to bring to safety those Americans who want to leave Lebanon. When the fighting ends, and I hope that that will be soon, the United States must engage in a concerted, sustained effort with other nations seeking a joint resolution of the differences between Israel and its neighbors. Israel's right to exist is the nonnegotiable starting point for that effort. I thank again those who were responsible for bringing the resolution to the floor, and again commend Mr. Lantos for his leadership, for his compassion, and for his wisdom.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank Mr. Nadler for yielding and for his great leadership in defending the Constitution of the United States which is, of course, our oath of office. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank Mr. Conyers, the gentleman from Michigan, for his leadership on this important issue, and to say to Congresswoman Baldwin and to Congressman Frank what an honor it is to serve with you in the Congress. It is a privilege to call you colleague. Mr. Speaker, the crisis in the Middle East reminds us that it is our responsibility as a Congress to address the urgent priorities of the American people. Yet today it is painfully obvious that instead of tackling the challenges facing our Nation and our world, Republicans want to persist in their agenda to distract and to divide. That is why the American people are demanding a new direction. That is why they say in great numbers that our country is going in the wrong direction. The challenges that our country face are too great for the Republican politics as usual. The constitutional amendment that we are debating today has been brought to this floor with full knowledge that it has no prospect for success either now or in the near future, the foreseeable future. This is a partisan exercise by Republicans to divide the American people rather than forge consensus to solve our urgent problems. Our Constitution, which we all take an oath to support and defend, is an enduring and living document that has throughout our history expanded rights, not diminished them. Though the Federal marriage amendment claims to protect marriage, it benefits no one and actually limits the rights of millions of Americans. In September, I am happy to say, my husband and I will be celebrating our 43rd wedding anniversary. I am a mother of five, we have five children and five grandchildren, expecting our sixth grandchild in October. And we certainly appreciate the value of family. We see family in our community as a source of strength and a source of comfort to people. What constitutes that family is an individual and personal decision. But for all, it is a place where people find love, comfort and support. As we consider this amendment, we must understand we are talking about our fellow citizens, equal under the law, who are lesbian and gay, and what it means to them. They are members of our communities with dreams and aspirations, including their right to find comfort, love and support on equal terms. They have every right and every expectation of any American that they are entitled to the very purposes for which this country was founded, that we are all created equal by our Creator, and endowed with inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Let me tell you about two extraordinary constituents of mine, I have talked about them on the floor before. Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, both in their eighties, and they have lived together for more than 50 years. They are grandparents, by the way, they are grandmothers. Their commitment, their love and their happiness are a source of strength to all who know them. They are leaders in our community and are held in high esteem by all who know them. Why should they not have the full protection of the law to be able to share each other's health and bereavement benefits, to be able to share all of the protections and rights accruing to financial relationships, inheritance and immigration? Why should Phyllis and Del and millions of gay and lesbian citizens not be treated equally and not be afforded the legal protections conferred by marriage? I will again vote against this amendment, as I have in the past, because it is counter to the noble ideas of liberty, freedom and equality for which this Nation stands. This amendment defiles our cherished Constitution by saying that some members of our society are not equal under the law. This is blatant discrimination. It is wrong. It does not belong in our Constitution. It is contrary again to the noble purpose for which this Nation was founded, and it is contrary to the principle of ending discrimination, unifying our country, and fostering equality for all. The American people demand that this Congress address their priorities: creation of jobs, creating a minimum wage that has not been raised in 9 years, gas prices that are over $3 a gallon, and the skyrocketing cost of higher education. That is what they want us to be doing here. Mr. Speaker, let us strive to do the work of the American people. Let us strive to unite our country, take our country in a whole new direction, let us honor our Constitution, let us honor all of God's children and let us reject this amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, last August I had the honor to march in Atlanta in recognition of the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, joining our colleagues Congressman Lewis, the Reverend Jesse Jackson and so many other leaders. I took with me the commitment of more than 200 House Democrats that we would vote 100 percent to reauthorize and strengthen this landmark legislation. And we stand by that commitment today. In May, I was proud to join Speaker Hastert and the Senate leaders, Senator Frist and Senator Reid, to march down the steps of the Capitol and reaffirm our commitment to passing this legislation to strengthen and reauthorize the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years. Today, we have the opportunity, indeed the privilege, to honor that bipartisan commitment. In that spirit, I wish to acknowledge the steadfast leadership of Chairman Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner; Mr. Conyers, thank you for your leadership, the two of you for working together; and the extraordinary leadership of Congressman Mel Watt, the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and a member of the Judiciary Committee, who helped cobble together this compromise with his persistent, persistent leadership. Thank you, Mr. Watt. I also salute the Chair of the Hispanic Caucus, Congresswoman Grace Napolitano, and the Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, Congressman Mike Honda, for their leadership. Of course, as with so many of our colleagues, we are very privileged to acknowledge Congressman John Lewis, the conscience of the Congress. Voting rights and civil rights in America are possible because of his courage and personal sacrifice and that of so many of our brave Americans who fought for the cause of freedom and justice. This was an epic moral struggle in our country, and it remains our moral imperative to remove obstacles to voting and to representation for all. Among the other brave Americans are three extraordinary women. It is fitting that this legislation is named for Rosa Parks, for Coretta Scott King and for Fannie Lou Hamer. These women were constant in their pursuit of voting rights. Rosa Parks ignited the Montgomery bus boycott. Fannie Lou Hamer electrified the 1964 Democratic Convention where she said, ``I am sick and tired of being sick and tired'' and was successful in getting her African American delegates recognized at the delegation. Coretta Scott King was the keeper of the flame and one of our Nation's greatest civil rights leaders in her own right. Forty years ago, in one of our Nation's finest hours, we came together to give teeth to the 15th amendment to overcome bigotry and injustice and to secure the fundamental right to vote. With the passage of the Voting Rights Act, we said that we would no longer tolerate any of the nefarious methods such as poll tax, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and brutal violence that had been used to deny African Americans and other minority citizens the right to vote. Within months of the Voting Rights Act's passage, a quarter of a million new African American voters had been registered. A quarter of a million new voices that had been silenced could finally be heard. They, along with millions to follow, changed the world with a vision of justice, equality, and opportunity for all. We see its impact in the Halls of Congress: 81 African American, Latino, Asian and Native American Members. We all know that America is at its best when our remarkable diversity is represented in our Halls of power. We also know that we still have a great distance to go in order to live up to our Nation's ideals of equality and opportunity. That is why the Voting Rights Act is still necessary, and that is why any amendments to weaken it must be rejected. I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on changing preclearance provisions, diminishing language assistance, and shortening the authorization period. Make no mistake, the 10-year limitation on key VRA provisions seriously undermines its effectiveness. We are all familiar with the, ``I Have a Dream'' speech of Dr. Martin Luther King, the march on Washington nearly 43 years ago. One part of the speech that I love that is not as frequently quoted as the ``I have a dream'' part, though, is he said in that speech: ``We have come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.'' We today must reject gradualism by voting ``no'' on the amendment to make this reauthorization period 10 years. Any diminishment of the Voting Rights Act is a diminishment of our democracy. In America, the right to vote must never, ever be compromised. We must not rest until the expiring sections of the Voting Rights Act are strengthened and reauthorized. This is our solemn pledge and obligation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the Fourth of July, that wonderful holiday where we celebrate America's Declaration of Independence, we must recall that our Founding Fathers understood and placed in our founding documents the important balance between liberty and security. In that spirit, at the outset, let me reiterate that we all, Democrats and Republicans alike, support two principles. First, we support effective tools to fight terrorism, including the tracking of terrorist financing here and abroad under all applicable laws. Second, no one here condones disclosure of information that harms our vital national interest and makes locating terrorists and terrorist networks and disrupting their plans more difficult. These basic principles and their frames, liberty and security, are contained in a balanced way in the substitute resolution offered by the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. Frank's resolution should have been permitted by the rule to be considered today. But, again, in this closed Congress that we are in, we cannot consider alternatives. We can't even have a motion to recommit. I don't know what is so good about that as we go into the Fourth of July. But let us talk about the Republican resolution. The Republican resolution before us today is quite clearly a document for political purposes. It makes sweeping and dubious conclusions on the facts and legality of the financial transaction surveillance program, unsupported by any fact-finding or oversight, and based upon representations by the President. In a free society, we all have our roles and responsibilities. As public officials, we must safeguard our lawful intelligence activities, many of which have been conducted in secret. We respect that. Our media, of course, have their public responsibilities. A free press is centered on reporting on the workings of government and on being alert, aware and free. They have an obligation to be responsible about their reporting of national security and to balance any reporting with the harm of disclosure. Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration lacks credibility when it comes to complaining about leaks. The administration's record, and that of this Republican Congress, are marked by selective disclosures of classified information and selective expressions of displeasure over leaks. When the identity of an undercover CIA officer was disclosed by high- ranking members of the administration in the White House, as part of a smear campaign against a critic of the Iraq war, the President did not fire any of the leakers. In fact, one of them was actually promoted. As Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has told us, this disclosure could cause severe damage and irreparable harm to our national security. Similarly, it was recently revealed that President Bush himself was alleged to have authorized for political purposes the selective leaking of intelligence information in a National Security Estimate. Where was the outrage and the oversight from this Republican Congress? Nowhere to be seen. Repeatedly, this Republican Congress has spurned resolutions of inquiry and neglected congressional oversight responsibility to get to the bottom of leaks by the Bush administration. So let us take this resolution for what it is. It is a campaign document. The Republican resolution contains a number of statements that simply cannot be factually confirmed and are not the result of congressional fact-finding or rigorous congressional oversight. The Republican resolution also contains a number of statements regarding the legality of the program and the safeguards it claims protects individual rights. Let me just read what that is. This resolution finds that the Terrorist Financed Tracking Program has been conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and Executive Orders, that appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect individual civil liberties, and that Congress has been appropriately informed and consulted for the duration of the Program and will continue its oversight of the Program. Continue its oversight of the program? There has never been any oversight of the program. The fact is, because there has never been any oversight of the program, there isn't one person in this body who will vote on this resolution who can attest to this statement. You are asking us to vote on something that we absolutely cannot attest to. Not any one of you can attest to this as a fact, because it isn't a fact. So let us just go to where we began, to our founders, liberty and security. As I said before, when the identity of an undercover CIA officer was disclosed by high-ranking members of the administration as part of a smear tactic, nothing was done. Nothing was done by this Congress in terms of oversight. Nothing has been done. The Frank substitute does not contain any of these unsupported conclusions. The Frank substitute is a resolution that is balanced and accurate and should command the support of all Members. I intend to vote against this resolution. I wish that we could have the chance to vote for Mr. Frank's resolution. I think that would have been in keeping with the intentions of our Founding Fathers. But let us keep in mind their constant admonition that in order to have security, we must have freedom. In order to have freedom, we must have security. We must have balance. This resolution does not.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us seeks to disenfranchise millions of American citizens by placing obstacles on their right--and their civic duty--to vote. The essence of our democracy is the right to vote. No right is more precious. Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act provides for ballot and language assistance for language minority citizens, so all citizens are fully able to participate in our democracy. Ballots and procedures are often complex and bewildering, even for those completely proficient in English. To ensure that all are able to participate on free and fair terms, language assistance is vital to protecting the right to vote, especially among Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and Alaskan Natives. Impact of Section 203: A key objective of the Voting Rights Act is not only to remedy past and current attempts to suppress the vote, but also to remove obstacles to the right to vote and bolster voter participation among populations where participation has historically been low. As the Judiciary Committee noted in its recent bipartisan committee report, Section 203 is needed today, and should be reauthorized to continue to achieve its purposes. For instance, after San Diego County provided language assistance, the registration rates among Spanish- and Filipino-speaking American citizens grew by more than 20 percent and registration among Vietnamese-speaking American citizens increased by nearly 40 percent. Likewise, in Apache County, Arizona, enforcement activities resulted in a 26 percent increase in Native American turnout in four years, allowing Navajo Code talkers, veterans, and the elderly to participate in elections for the first time. The Stearns amendment, however, by preventing enforcement of Section 203, will allow states and localities to discriminate against taxpaying American citizens because of their language ability, and impede their right to vote. That is wrong. In our country, our laws and our Constitution draws no distinction between American citizens born here or not. In fact, three- quarters of those who are covered by the language assistance provision are native-born United States citizens. The rest are naturalized U.S. citizens. The opponents of Section 203 claim that the costs are too great. Studies disprove that contention, but costs are not the issue. Securing the right to vote must never--and cannot--ever be considered a burden. It is our moral and constitutional obligation. The arguments of the opponents of Section 203 are suspiciously similar to the arguments once employed for literacy tests to disenfranchise African American voters. I had hoped we had passed that period in our country's history when such tests were widely used. We cannot permit the use of these tests once again. Mr. Chairman, we are supposed to unite together as Americans with one voice to reaffirm our commitment on the fundamental subject of voting rights for all of our citizens. Instead, this ugly amendment seeks to undermine that moral and historic commitment. The constant scapegoating of our fellow American citizens--and attempts to suppress their voting rights--must end. Any diminishing of language assistance is a diminishment of our American democracy. We must defeat this amendment, and affirm our support of Section 203. The right to vote must never, ever be compromised. Every vote counts--every vote must be counted.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Ruth Passen as she celebrates her 80th birthday. I am proud to pay tribute to her 40 years of respected community journalism as the editor and publisher of the Potrero View, and recognize her lifetime of community service and social activism. Born and raised in San Francisco, she became a formidable advocate for social justice, peace, equality, democracy and freedom. In 1970, with a few dedicated volunteers, Ruth launched the Potrero View, which has become San Francisco's longest running community newspaper. With her guidance, the Potrero View grew from a neighborhood newsletter into an award-winning, respected, and much anticipated journal of local news, as well as a significant resource of community services. Its investigative style and editorial integrity are well- known throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. As a dear friend and right arm to the late, legendary Enola Maxwell, Ruth helped build the Potrero Hill Neighborhood House, affectionately known as the Nabe, into a hub of vital services for the youth, the elderly, and the families of Potrero Hill. She was instrumental in bringing her beloved jazz and theater to the Nabe and the wider community. Ruth was actively involved with the Women's International League of Peace and Freedom in the peace mobilization of the 1960s and 70s and worked in solidarity with the people of El Salvador for justice and democracy in the 1980s. Ruth and her husband Joe Passen, whose life we celebrated on this floor 14 years ago, were relentless champions of the labor movement. Together, they fought for working men and women on the San Francisco waterfront and in the maritime industry throughout the West Coast. They helped San Francisco become the first and foremost trade union town in the world. They worked alongside Cesar Chavez in support of California's farm workers. As Young Democrats they were part of a progressive movement in San Francisco that brought Phillip Burton, John Burton, Sala Burton and me to this people's House. We thank Ruth for her immeasurable contributions to our City. We wish her every happiness as she begins a new chapter in her life as Editor Emeritus of the Potrero View and grandmother extraordinaire. Finally, she will have much deserved time to pursue her many interests, as well as spend time with her beloved family--her son Marc, daughter-in-law Dianne, and granddaughters Natalie and Teresa. Thank you, Ruth for your years of service to our beautiful City of San Francisco.

Ms. PELOSI

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of consideration. It is inappropriate to consider this bill until the Republican leadership schedules a vote on an increase in the minimum wage, which they are now blocking. Therefore, under clause 3, rule XVI, I demand a vote on the question of consideration.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. I congratulate him on his, as always, excellent leadership on behalf of the middle-class working families in America. I salute him for his excellent presentation today. Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering the ultimate values debate. The question before us today is, Do we want to cut taxes for the ultra-superrich, or, instead, do we first want to give hardworking Americans a raise? Do we want to live in an aristocracy, or do we want to live in a democracy? Do we want to perpetuate wealth or reward work? The estate tax is central to our democracy. It is rooted in our commitment to create a strong and vibrant middle class and to give every American the opportunity to achieve the American Dream. After the Gilded Age, in which the elites of the time held power and wealth that far, far, far outstripped what the average American had, America decided to go in a new direction. One of America's great Republican Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, made the argument for an estate tax, saying that the ``really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in its kind, as well as its degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means.'' Therefore, President Theodore Roosevelt said, ``I believe in a graduated tax on big fortunes properly safeguarded against evasion.'' Democrats believe that we must create wealth. We recognize that, that we must reward entrepreneurship and risk, and we must encourage hard work. That is why Democrats supported a targeted estate tax relief for small businesses and farmers and families that would ensure 99.7 percent of all Americans don't pay any estate tax. This is in the spirit of Theodore Roosevelt, targeting the vast fortunes that differ not only in the quantity of wealth, but in the kind. I salute Congressman Earl Pomeroy for his leadership in giving Congress an alternative that is morally and fiscally responsible. Unfortunately, once again, the Republican leadership, just as they have blocked a vote on the minimum wage, are blocking Mr. Pomeroy's option to bring his proposal to the floor, which is responsible, which is paid for, and which is fair to all Americans. Under Mr. Pomeroy's proposal, only the top .3 percent, that means 99.7 percent of Americans, most people in America, would not pay any estate tax. But it would leave that .3 percent, the very, very, superwealthy, to pay their fair share. There are very few people involved, but a great deal of money. We will have a chance to vote on it in the motion to recommit. Unfortunately, we will not have the time to debate it as an alternative. We have these questions that have come before us when we are talking about this. We are talking about giving $800 billion to a few families in America. Democrats stand for fiscal responsibility, pay-as-you-go budgets, and no new deficit spending. Republicans, instead, have put forth the bill that will cost the American people, again, almost $800 billion; $800 billion that we don't have, that we are going to have to borrow. Our national debt is becoming a national security issue. Countries that now own our debt, it is over $1 trillion already, and this doesn't include this $800 billion, those countries that now own our debt will not only be making our toys, our clothes and our computers, they will be soon making our foreign policy. They have too much leverage over us. With this bill today, the Republicans are giving tax cuts to the wealthy and asking the middle class to pay for it by writing checks to China and Japan for the interest payments on the debt and, ultimately, the payment on principal. It is ridiculous. It is ridiculous. Let me get this straight. We are at war in Iraq. Many of the same people who wanted to support the stay-the-course that the President is on in Iraq, which has around a $400 billion price tag on it, that is off budget. They don't want to pay for that. And that is a huge figure. And now the Republicans are saying, not only that, not only are we not paying for the war, it is off budget. We will just heap that debt on to future generations. They are saying, we are going to give twice as much as that to a few families in America. It is so unfair, this same week that we are taking this up. As I said earlier, this is the ultimate values debate. How can a person of conscience say to the Congress, we do not support an increase in the minimum wage. Instead we are going to give $800 billion to the wealthiest people in America. The minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. It hasn't been raised in 9 years. This is a shame. It is a disgrace. It is unfair. And what does the leader on the Republican side say about the minimum wage? Mr. Boehner says, I have been in this business for 25 years and I have never voted for an increase in the minimum wage. I am opposed to it, and I think the vast majority of the Republican conference is opposed to it. So thank you, Mr. Boehner, for making a differentiation for us. You are for $800 billion for the wealthiest families in America, and not an increase of over $5.15 an hour for America's working families. So instead of giving 7 million Americans a raise by increasing the minimum wage, again, the Republicans are proposing $800 billion, that is nearly $1 trillion, as a gift to the wealthy. This is Robin Hood in reverse. We are stealing from the middle class to give to the wealthy. Pope Benedict just recently put out his new encyclical, ``God is Love.'' And in his encyclical, he quoted Saint Augustine when he wrote, this is in the Pope's encyclical. You can find it there. He talked about the role that politicians have and that a government should be just, and we should be promoting justice. And he goes on, Pope Benedict does, to quote Saint Augustine. He says: ``A state that is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves.'' This is the Pope saying this in an encyclical, quoting a saint. ``A state which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves.'' I ask this Congress, is it justice to steal from the middle class to give tax cuts to the ultra-superrich? It is not just. And it is an injustice we cannot afford. Americans can no longer afford President Bush and the Republicans. It is time for a new direction. We can begin by rejecting this estate tax giveaway to the wealthy and insist on a vote to increase the minimum wage. That would be a real values judgment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, at the opening of the debate, Mr. Skelton asked the House to observe a moment of silence for the 2,500 troops that we have lost in the war in Iraq. The number is a staggering one, but we warned them one person at a time. I hope their families live with great pride. I know they will live with great sorrow. My uncle was killed at the Battle of the Bulge, and for my father's entire life it was as if it had happened yesterday. As if it had happened yesterday. We know that experience has been repeated over and over again across our country. In remembering those who died, and their families who mourn them, let us also salute all of our men and women in uniform who are doing their jobs with great courage, with great patriotism and dedication, and their families who are making enormous sacrifices; 2,500 killed, 18,000 wounded, more than half of them permanently, straining our military readiness and eroding our reputation in the world. The President of the United States says, stay the course. Stay the course? I don't think so, Mr. President. It is time to face the facts. On every important aspect in the Iraq war, President Bush and his advisors have been wrong: wrong on the reason to go to war, wrong on the reception our troops would receive, wrong on the rapidity with which the Iraqi economy would be able to pay for the war and reconstruction, and wrong on the willingness of the international community to join in efforts to stabilize Iraq. But don't take my word for it. This gross incompetence has driven some of our fighting generals to level devastating public criticism. MG John Batiste, who led the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, has said: ``My own decision to speak out goes back to watching firsthand the arrogant and contemptuous attitude of Rumsfeld as he ignored the advice of military experts during preparations for war, and then living with the impact of those strategic blunders as a division commander in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld and his team turned what should have been a deliberate victory in Iraq into a prolonged challenge.'' That is why over 2 years ago I asked for the resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld, and I do so again today. No one has been held accountable for all of these mistakes in Iraq. The incompetence comes at a great cost. The Bush administration is so obsessed with the effort to paint an optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq that it refuses to face the facts. The facts are these: more than 2,500 American troops have been killed. Again, more than 18,000 have been injured, half of them permanently. And as the war costs have grown to over $400 billion, key construction projects remain unfinished. As defense and intelligence expert Anthony Cordesman recently wrote: ``The U.S. aid process has failed. It has wasted at least half of the $22 billion in U.S. funds and much of the $34.6 billion in Iraq funds it attempted to use to secure and develop Iraq's economy.'' I repeat: defense and intelligence expert Anthony Cordesman recently wrote: ``The U.S. aid process has failed. It has wasted at least half of the $22 billion in U.S. funds and much of the $34.6 billion in Iraq funds in an attempt to secure and develop Iraq's economy.'' This is outrageous. Where is the accountability? In fact, Mr. Cordesman concludes that the U.S.-managed Iraq reconstruction efforts have been as failed as the U.S. response to Hurricane Katrina. The Bush Iraq policy has diverted resources and attention from what should be the focus of our effort against terrorism in places like Afghanistan. The lack of stability and the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan is a casualty of the war in Iraq. The war has not made our country safer. It has not made our military stronger. It has caused great damage to our reputation in the world, and it has hindered the fight against terrorism. In face of all of this incompetence and the cost of the war, I repeat, the President urges us to ``stay the course.'' Stay the course, Mr. President, is not a strategy. It is a slogan. I will vote against this resolution because it is an affirmation of the President's failed policy in Iraq, and in doing so I will be pleased to join Mr. Murtha and Mr. Skelton. And I would like to at this moment salute them for their patriotism and their dedication to our country. They are second to none, as Mr. Skelton said in his remarks. They are second to none in this Congress and in this country in looking out for the troops and being concerned and knowledgeable about troop readiness, about the strains on our military this war is putting on them and in deterring our ability to respond to other threats. I salute them for their leadership and, in fact, their courage. Because here we have the Republicans putting on the floor a vacuous resolution, a challenge that if you say that you support the troops, you have to vote for this. That day is over. That day is over. The credentials on real security for our country, be it homeland security, be it willing to project military might to protect America's interests at home and abroad, we all share a that. So don't put something on the table that says you either vote for this if you support the troops or you don't. This resolution is one thing and one thing only: it is an affirmation of President Bush's failed Iraq policy. The American people know the policy has failed. The American people know that. Hopefully, it will dawn on the President, and he, instead of stay the course, will change the course. He will stop digging the hole he is digging in Iraq and come out and see the light of day as to what is the right direction. Across the country, Americans have had free and open debate about this war. But when the time came to debate Iraq in this Congress, Republicans shut down debate with a closed rule. This is not only an affront to the Democrats; it is an affront to the American people. Closed rule. Limited debate. Twice as many people on our side of the aisle would like to have spoken, but there wasn't enough time. There wasn't enough time to give Members of Congress the opportunity to give voice to the concerns of their constituents about a matter as important as sending and keeping our troops at war. What a sad commentary on our democracy. We supposedly are going to Iraq to promote democracy, yet we don't even have it on the floor of the House of Representatives. What is sad about that is that we owe so much better, so much more to the American people, particularly to the brave men and women we have sent to fight in Iraq. Democrats are calling for a new direction in Iraq. Our new direction would say to the Iraqi people that we will not be in your country indefinitely, we will not construct permanent bases, and we will not control the flow of your oil. We will work with you and your neighbors diplomatically to ensure that the reconstruction of Iraq is successful. We will do as Mr. Murtha advocates. We will redeploy and be ready. Republicans in Congress continue to try to mislead the American people by suggesting a link between the war in Iraq and the war on terror. They are distinct, as Mr. Skelton has repeatedly and eloquently stated. They are distinct. And efforts to portray one as part of the other are a disservice to the truth and to the men and women sent to fight in Baghdad, Kirkuk, and Ramadi. The huge cost of the Iraq war in lost lives, life-altering wounds sustained, and billions of dollars spent demand better of us. The defense authorization bill, as was quoted again by Mr. Skelton, enacted last year, declares 2006 to be a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, creating the conditions of the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. That is in the 2006 DOD authorization bill: the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. That is the law of the land. You all voted to support it. We are halfway through 2006, significant transition has not occurred, and the only redeployment has been of U.S. forces into Iraq, not out. The war in Iraq has been a mistake. I say a grotesque mistake. It must be our resolve to end the war as soon as possible and to resolve to not make similar mistakes in the future. We owe it to the American people. We owe it to the young men and women that we send in to fight the fight. Again, Democrats take our responsibility to provide for the common defense very seriously. We are proud to have leaders like Mr. Murtha and Mr. Skelton to lead that charge for us.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, it has been 17 years since the Chinese government unleashed the People's Liberation Army on its own defenseless people in Tiananmen Square. Today, the House of Representatives pays tribute to the brave souls who stood up for freedom, only to be met with a hail of bullets and a new era of repression. The forward march of freedom has often been advanced by people who defied the powers of their day to demand the liberties and human rights to which all people everywhere are entitled. We remember how Chinese students, workers, and citizens marched in peace; how they raised a Goddess of Democracy in the image of our own Statue of Liberty; how they quoted our own Founding Fathers. Seventeen years later, almost every independent organization monitoring human rights believes the situation in China has not significantly improved. In fact, we know the Chinese government is becoming even more sophisticated, using new technology to monitor and apprehend those who criticize the regime or worship freely. Web service providers are required to censor information. Sadly, they are complying instead of using their leverage to push for change. Religious believers continue to be a target of the Chinese government, subjected to harassment and detention for only practicing their faith. Chinese authorities require Tibetans to denounce the Dalai Lama as their spiritual leader and imprison individuals for simply owning pictures of the Dalai Lama. Bush Administration officials say they hope China will become a ``responsible stakeholder'' in world affairs. We should avoid wishful thinking about the intentions of the Chinese government. In addition to the deplorable human rights conditions, the Chinese government is providing military technology to countries that threaten international security including Iran and North Korea, threatening Taiwan with a military attack, and violating its trade agreements. Certainly we need to engage China, but it should be sustainable engagement that enables us to sustain our values, sustain our economic growth, and sustain our national security. Today, we once again call on Beijing to release the thousands of prisoners whose only crime is to demand their basic human rights. We call on the Chinese government to open up the Laogai prison system to the International Red Cross so the world can see what really is going on. The spirit of Tiananmen endures and inspires. Tanks and troops may crush a protest, but they can never extinguish the flame of freedom that bums in every human heart.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, this week we recognize that 25 years ago in San Francisco doctors saw a disease that did not yet have a name with symptoms that hearkened back to the Middle Ages. Some manifestations of the disease were lesions, pneumonia, infections. Within 5 years, we were losing so many, many friends to AIDS that we would often go to two funerals in one day. A whole generation of young people went to more funerals than birthdays. We had too many friends who we held in our arms at the end of their lives that felt like a bag of bones more than the muscular young people they had been. There was so much, first of all, a lack of information and then fear of what became known as HIV/ AIDS. Nineteen years ago, it was this week I came to Congress to be sworn in. And my first sentence was, I am here from San Francisco and I have come to fight against AIDS. Actually, what I said is, Sala Burton sent me here to fight against AIDS. She was my predecessor. People asked me, why would you say that? You don't want to be labeled that way. That is the way AIDS was viewed at the time. But that was why I came here, and I said that from day one. Because San Francisco had suffered the most, we now had an opportunity to be a model for America and eventually the world, a model for leadership, for community-based solutions, and for intervention. We got to work right away, working with many of my colleagues, Congressman Waxman in the lead on our Banking Committee; Congressmen McDermott, Schumer and Frank working on our Housing Opportunities With People With Aids; Congresswoman, now Senator, Boxer, again, working with Congressman Waxman creating the Ryan White CARE Act to provide health care and support services for people with HIV and AIDS. Just as this was all going on, at the very beginning of my tenure in Congress, I measure things that way, a gentleman named Cleve Jones from San Francisco came to me and said we want to have a press conference at your home to announce something called the Names Project. What that would be is that people would make a patch for a giant quilt in honor of a friend, a family member, a loved one who had died of AIDS. I, being the mother of five and taught to sew in my Catholic school upbringing, said, Sew? Nobody's going to sew. Nobody sews anymore. I have four daughters and one son. I don't sew and I know how to sew. But I was wrong and he was right. And what started that day as us taking a few stitches with then-mayor of San Francisco Art Agnos and Cleve Jones turned into this giant Names Project that has been displayed on the Mall here in Washington. It is indeed a wonder of the world. Sadly, though, as the quilt grew, so did the recognition of the many lives that were taken or lost from HIV and AIDS. Next in San Francisco, we created the AIDS Memorial Grove and then designated a national memorial to the thousands of Americans who have died of AIDS. It was really a remarkable thing in our city of San Francisco. Although the numbers were staggering, every diagnosis was an individual one and a personal one, and we had to measure the success of what we were doing as to what it meant to the lives of each person infected with HIV or to the next stage of AIDS. We recognized that if we were going to have an appropriate response to AIDS, that it had to be international, and thus was started by Paul Boneberg, a person in San Francisco, The International Mobilization Against AIDS. This was many years ago. Fast forward to now. This year, we have an essential responsibility to continue these efforts by reauthorizing the Ryan White Care Act and then supporting what works by making serious investments in it. Twenty-five years ago when we heard about the symptoms that would become known as AIDS, and 19 years ago when I first came to Congress, I never thought that we would be standing here today without a cure. Five years from now, on the 30th anniversary, I pray that we can say that AIDS is a terrible, terrible memory; that we have prevented deaths, ended the epidemic, and found a cure. This is especially true not only in our country but throughout the world where many children are affected by the deaths of their parents, being orphaned, and by their own infections as well. With a group of my colleagues, I visited South Africa and other countries in Africa, but particularly in South Africa we visited the AIDS clinic and saw the important work that was being done there on that continent. It is taking a terrible toll in terms of lives and hopes and dreams and aspirations. I hope that we will soon be able to say that AIDS taught us how to love each other more but that we will never see it again. Again, I call to the attention of my colleagues the 25th anniversary of the first diagnosis of AIDS, and hope that a cure will be right around the corner.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great civic and community advocate, Charlotte Marie Peterson Quann, who died on May 17, 2006. I join my constituents in honoring her lifetime of service to San Francisco's most vulnerable and in recognizing her leadership as one of the earliest African American professional women. Charlotte called many places her home, but she devoted more than three decades of her life to improving the lives of those less fortunate in the San Francisco Bay Area. She served as the Chair of the Board for La Casa de Las Madres, an emergency shelter for battered women and their children, and as Chair of the Glide Church Board of Trustees in the Tenderloin neighborhood of San Francisco. At Glide she ministered to the poor and infirm and took special delight in the children's programs. Charlotte was an active participant in the Cal- Nevada United Methodist conference Board of Higher Education and Campus Ministry. When she died at age 72, she was the Chair of the Board of Center Point drug treatment programs and of the Mary Elizabeth Inn, a shelter for women in transition. Charlotte began her leadership activities early in life. In high school she joined numerous clubs where she ran for office. She graduated from the Detroit Public School System and graduated from Northwestern High School at age 16. She was active in the Urban League, YMCA speech and debate, and her photo is in Northwestern's Hall of fame. At age 16 she went to the U.S. Capitol and served as one of the first and youngest female Congressional pages. Her father, at whose side she learned, organizing Detroit's factory workers, inspired her political activism. In 1959, Charlotte became the first African American to work for Capital Airlines (the predecessor of United Airlines). She held many positions there and also served as President, Vice President, and Secretary of the United Airlines Black Professional Organization. Charlotte will be missed by all who cherished her warm smile and infectious humor and who were touched by her selfless leadership and advocacy. I extend my deepest sympathy to her sons, Steven and Warren, her daughter Carla, her grandson, Carl, her granddaughters Catherine, Sade, and Iman, her sisters Gloria Patton, Scheryl Peterson, and Gail Peterson, her brothers Willie Jr. and George Peterson, sisters-in-law and many nieces and nephews. Thank you for sharing Charlotte with us; her life was a gift to us all.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time and her leadership on this important issue about openness and freedom on the Internet. Mr. Speaker, last year, House Democrats met with leaders around the country to create our innovation agenda, a commitment to competitiveness to keep America number one. One young technology leader told us, If you think you have seen it all on the Internet and broadband, you ain't seen nothing yet. The objective of this legislation, to create more competition in the broadband marketplace, is a laudable one. But a key goal of the telecommunications policy must be that everyone in America, from the most rural areas to the most urban, is never more than a key stroke or a mouse click away from the jobs and opportunity that broadband can create and support. Bridging the digital divide with inclusiveness must be a central value of our broadband efforts, yet today absent from this bill is that spirit of inclusiveness. Why are we not able to debate amendments that ensure that access is built out to the entire community and not limited by race or religion? Why are we not able to debate amendments to protect our local governments and enforce our local laws? In fact, on the previous vote on consideration of the resolution that Ms. Baldwin put forward on unfunded mandates, it was reported by the CBO that this bill could cost local governments about $350 million in unfunded mandates. It is interesting to me that the Republicans who have had not having unfunded mandates as a principle of their Contract with America, 100 percent of the Republicans voted for an unfunded mandate for localities in our country to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Not one Republican supported the principle of no unfunded mandates. What are the Republicans afraid of? Because the debate has been limited and Americans' voices silenced by this restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule. One issue that we do have a chance to vote on today is the Markey amendment on net neutrality. Mr. Markey has offered an amendment that will continue the innovative tradition of the Internet by enacting net neutrality protections that ensure all consumers are able to access any content they wish with the same broadband speed and performance. The imposition of additional fees for Internet content providers would unduly burden Web-based small businesses and start-ups. They would hamper communications by noncommercial users, those using religious speech, promoting civic involvement and exercising first amendment freedoms. That is why organizations across the political spectrum support net neutrality, from the Gun Owners of America to Common Cause, from the Christian Coalition to the Service Employees International Union. America's most innovative companies like Google and eBay and YouTube and Yahoo also favor the Markey amendment. Without Net neutrality, the current experience that the Internet users enjoy today is in jeopardy. Without the Markey amendment, telecommunications and cable companies will be able to create toll lanes on the information superhighways. This strikes at the heart of the freedom and quality of the Internet. Today we can vote to retain the openness and innovation of the Internet. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the future, in favor of the Markey amendment, and against the restrictiveness of this rule.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I salute my colleagues, Congressmen Dingell, Markey, Inslee, and Boucher, and Congresswoman Eshoo for their leadership on this issue of vital importance to the future. I also want to recognize the leadership of Congressman John Conyers and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren for their work on Net Neutrality in the Judiciary Committee. History When Lewis and Clark made their historic journey of discovery two centuries ago, information could only travel as fast as a horse could run or a boat could sail. Now information travels in an instant. And just as railroads and highways did in the past, broadband has dramatically increased the productivity and efficiency of our economy and will continue to do so in the future. It has created jobs today, and will create even more jobs tomorrow.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to salute Speaker Hastert for becoming the longest serving Republican Speaker in history. Long may his record stand. This milestone is a testament to his leadership within the Republican Conference and within the Halls of Congress. Dennis Hastert spent 16 years as a teacher and coach at Yorkville High School in Illinois. He has put the skills he learned there to good use in this body. After 6 years in the Illinois State House, he came to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1986. In 1999, Denny Hastert's colleagues elected him Speaker of the House, the third highest Government official in the United States. While we often disagree on issues, we agree on the importance of public service. That kind of public service has been the hallmark of Speaker Hastert's career whether in the classroom or in the House of Representatives. Today I also salute the Speaker's wife, Jean, and his two children, Ethan and Joshua, for this milestone. Through the trying moments and the moments like this, one of great triumph, they have stood by his side. They are watching you on television now. In Congress we all hold the title ``honorable'' by virtue of our office. Dennis Hastert holds it by virtue of his character. I salute him for his service to our Nation and look forward to many future opportunities to work together. Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.