Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, no, I did not yield. I said when you yielded to me for 10 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I yield back to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his exceptional leadership in this House on behalf of America's working families. He is a champion for middle-class families in our country, and once again that is reflected in the initiative that he has put forth today. Democrats are united behind the gentleman and his efforts. As we all know, the budget should be a blueprint for meeting our obligations and moving forward as a country. But the Republican budget is a blueprint for disaster. Today, thanks to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), we have an opportunity to have a real impact on the budget. We have a chance to correct some of the imbalance in the Republicans' distorted priorities. This vote matters. Congress will choose between giving tax cuts to people making over $1 million a year or making critical investments in homeland security, education, our veterans, health care, and the environment. Mr. Speaker, we all know, and it has been said over and over again on this floor, that our budget should be a statement of our national values. What is important to us as a country should be reflected in that budget. So I ask my colleagues, is it a statement of your values to give a tax cut, an additional tax cut to people making over $1 million per year and leaving children behind because they are not receiving the proper education? Would you rather give a tax cut to people making over $1 million a year or would you rather improve education by adding $1.5 billion for disadvantaged schools, putting us on a path for full funding of the No Child Left Behind? If the Republican budgets had prevailed over a 10-year period, nearly $20 billion would have been spent on education, and they can see this. It is below the line for every year except fiscal year 2002, and it is just slightly above the line. Ask any economist, and certainly Bob Rubin would attest to this, educating the American people is the best investment that we can make, certainly from a humanitarian standpoint; but from a practical budgetary and fiscal standpoint nothing brings more money into the Treasury than educating the American people. Early childhood, K through 12, higher education, post-grad, and life- time learning brings more money into the Federal Treasury than any tax cut or anything that you can name. And yet, and yet, the Republicans reject that, despite what it does for the growth of our country, what it does to bring money into the Treasury, and, instead, want to give tax cuts to people making over $1 million a year. Is it a statement of my colleagues' values to give a tax cut to people making over $1 million a year instead of improving veterans health care and shortening waiting times at VA health care facilities? The Paralyzed Veterans of America call this bill vital. They call this bill vital because, instead of those tax cuts, it truly honors our veterans. We talk a lot about veterans on this floor and how we honor their service to our country, but we dishonor them if we say they do not get the proper priority they should have; that we do not value them in our budget. Is it a statement of Republican values that in this time of uncertainty in terms of our homeland security to give a tax cut to people making over $1 million a year instead of improving our homeland security; adding $3 billion to give our first responders the equipment and training they need to increase security at our ports and at our airports? Most of the wealthy people I know who make over $1 million a year say they do not need the tax cut, and they would rather have investments in America's children and in America's security. They know that it comes to them at a cost to our society. This bill is also fiscally responsible. What the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has proposed would reduce the deficit by almost $5 billion. That would be about 25 percent of this money that comes from these people making over $1 million a year. He has investments in education, in veterans, in homeland security, in the environment, and a major investment in deficit reduction. What happened to the Republican deficit hawks? Have you become an endangered species? Let us be clear. This bill does not raise taxes. The previous gentleman from Florida spoke about this raising taxes on every living being. If everybody he knows makes over $1 million a year, maybe that is the circle he travels in; maybe that is his awareness of society. But it simply ain't so. And the gentleman is right, the speaker previous to him said ``there ain't no free lunch.'' There certainly is not. We should be paying as we go, and we will be addressing that in the substitute of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) later. But let us be clear that this does not raise taxes. It does make major investments in our education, health care, homeland security, and environment. It does reduce the deficit by nearly $5 billion, but it does not raise taxes. It halts a future tax cut, for those, again I keep repeating, making over, making over $1 million a year, and stopping the fiscally irresponsible giveaway of $19 billion next year to those who need it least. And let us be equally clear, we would not spend one penny more than the Republicans would. We just spend it differently. They have passed an ill-conceived Medicare bill that will cost taxpayers $534 billion and which gives $149 billion in windfall profits to big drug companies. They have chosen to ignore a bipartisan approach to pay as you go. Today, we see the stark difference between the two parties: Democrats are focused on the aspirations and the needs of all Americans; Republicans are solely focused on tax cuts for the wealthy few, many of whom, as I have said, realize that these tax cuts for them take a tremendous toll on society in general. The gentleman from Wisconsin's bill is a fiscally sound bill that invests in the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time, but more especially for the excellent leadership that he has provided as the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, and I thank him for bringing this substitute to the floor. I think it would be really very important for the American people to understand the standing that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has on this issue. He has, without any inkling of partisanship, addressed the issues of a fiscal soundness for our country and a budget that reflects our values in a way that has been, again, nonpartisan, professional, and responsible. He knows the facts and the figures. He takes responsibility for what he puts forth and will answer and defend the conclusions that he advances. So when he speaks about his own substitute that will lead to reducing the deficit, you can take him at his word. When he introduces this substitute for pay-as-you-go, it is as responsible as it sounds. Earlier in the debate, on the Obey amendment, one of our Republican colleagues said there is no such thing as a free lunch. This pay-as- you-go budget really validates that statement, because it says in order for us to provide for the needs and the aspirations of the American people, we must do so in a fiscally sound way, and we must not fool ourselves about the consequences of our actions. You can talk all day about the dynamic, as our Republican colleagues would say, about the dynamic impact of their tax cuts. They have been cutting taxes and cutting taxes and cutting taxes. Democrats like tax cuts too. We wanted to cut the taxes for the middle class. We want to cut the taxes for Americans who will then spend the money and put it back into the economy, injecting demand into the economy, creating jobs, growing the economy to create jobs. We want to use our investments in our budget to invest in education. There is no better investment that we can make in terms of helping and meeting the needs and aspirations of the American people in terms of educating them, early childhood, K through 12, higher ed, post-graduate and life-time learning. And nothing does more to grow the economy and bring money into the Federal Treasury than to educate the American people. So the investments that we talk about with pay-as-you-go are investments that bring money into the Treasury, that put tax cuts where they belong, where they will generate jobs and, again, inject demand. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) very, very carefully presented to us how the pay-as-you-go, when it was in effect, created a situation where we had zero deficit in 1999. This was not an accident. It was not a fluke. It was part of a plan. It was not a situation where we kept trying one thing and another. It was part of a plan. When the pay-as-you-go expired, we now have returned to these growing deficits; this year, $.5 trillion, a historically large deficit. So, Mr. Chairman, when the Republicans say that we should subscribe to their reckless economic plan because it is going to create jobs, the success of their economic plan has not hit home for middle-class Americans. Yes, some jobs have been created, but they have been lower- paying jobs than the ones that were lost. The purchasing power of Americans has not increased. In fact, the increase in wages since this spring, since March, has been about a nickel. About a nickel. So that is not an economic policy that has been successful for middle-class Americans. Their policy about tax cuts has been to go to those who need them least. Most of those people know they do not need the tax cuts and would rather they be investments into our society for educating our children. They do not want to, on top of it all, grow the deficit. We keep feeling the effects of that policy in lost jobs, wages that do not keep pace with inflation, and most dramatically, again, in record budget deficits. When President Bush took office, as was indicated by the charts the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) showed, we were on a path to a $5.6 trillion surplus. A $5.6 trillion surplus. Today, the budget deficit is projected to be over $3 trillion over the next 10 years, a $9 trillion fiscal collapse. We now have a deficit again for this year that is more than $.5 trillion for 1 year alone. That is an astounding burden on our children. We should be giving our children opportunity, not fiscal obligations because of the Republicans' reckless economic policies. These deficits matter. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said, ``History suggests that an abandonment of fiscal discipline will eventually push up interest rates, crowd out capital spending, lower productivity growth, and force harder choices upon us in the future.'' Economists agree, deficits are a drag on the economy. Higher deficits mean higher interest rates, which mean families pay more for homes, cars and college tuition. Higher deficits mean lower incomes. And higher deficits mean fewer good-paying jobs. Our country is at a crossroads on this issue, Mr. Chairman, and today we can choose between two distinct paths. One, as the gentleman from South Carolina suggests, is the road back to fiscal responsibility. The other is the road to fiscal ruin. The road to fiscal responsibility runs right through the Democratic substitute offered by the gentleman from South Carolina, which would put the budget on a pay-as-you-go system in which both tax cuts and spending increases must be paid for, a real pay-as-you-go system. Alan Greenspan agrees. He recently testified before the Senate Banking Committee that pay-as-you-go should apply to both taxes and spending. These rules were in effect throughout the 1990s, as was mentioned, and they were effective. As a result of these rules, we turned record deficits that we had received into the 1990s into record surpluses as we left the 1990s. We could do it again today. The road to fiscal ruin runs through the unrestrained deficits of the Republican proposal. The Republican bill on the floor today is a sham. It steals the mantle of pay-as-you-go without requiring the discipline that real pay-as-you-go would require. By failing to offset tax cuts, the Republican bill will make the deficit even worse. The issue is simple: The Democratic pay-as-you-go proposal has a record of success. The Republican approach has a record of deficits. If you want to return to fiscal responsibility, vote for the Democratic substitute on pay-as-you-go. Mr. Chairman, I again want to salute the gentleman from South Carolina and again commend what he has to say to the American people because he speaks truth about the budget and about the deficit. He knows of what he speaks. He knows the discipline that is needed to reduce the deficit. We are all blessed by his leadership.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend and thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his great leadership on this issue and for bringing this resolution to the floor. He has been a champion supporter for a strong national defense for our country and knows that it is in our interest to have a secure and safe Israel. I also want to commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) for her leadership and consistent leadership on this issue as well. I commend also the makers of the motion, the majority leader the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip, for putting before us a resolution that I think we should all support. I think it gets right to the point, right to the point of what we need which is a negotiated settlement between the parties. This resolution preserves that right for those parties. Mr. Speaker, we can never say it enough, America's commitment to the safety and security of the State of Israel is unwavering. There are unbreakable bonds of friendship between the United States of America and the State of Israel. That is for sure. The United States stands with Israel because of our common interest, our fundamental from in the most basic of all rights, the right to exist, the right to live free from fear, the right to put our children on a school bus in the morning knowing that they will come home safely in the afternoon. Let there be no doubt the United States of America stands with the State of Israel because of those bonds of friendship but really first, and more fundamentally, because it is in our national interest to stand with the State of Israel. I view this resolution as an endorsement of a fresh start. I listened intently to what my colleagues have said about concerns they have about the plight of the Palestinians in the region and I share them. This resolution preserves the right for final negotiations between the parties for those parties to resolve their differences. It recognizes that for Israel to be secure and safe, it is important and necessary for there to be a Palestinian state. So when the Prime Minister of Israel Sharon announced withdrawal from Gaza, and we do not know the extent yet from the West Bank, I viewed it as a new, fresh opportunity for peace in the Middle East, which is in the national interest of our country and the international interest of the world and, certainly, the regional interest of those involved directly. By passing this resolution, the House of Representatives will affirm the support of the United States already confirmed by President Bush for Prime Minister Sharon's withdrawal plan. The principles endorsed by the resolution are consistent with the framework for peace previously outlined by President Clinton and intended to facilitate the implementation for the road map for peace. The road map remains the best chance for a comprehensive solution for the differences between Israelis and Palestinians. It is time for all parties to the road map to use the opportunities presented by the Sharon plan to bring an end to the violence and achieve lasting peace in the Middle East.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today our country is at a crossroads, and this debate on the floor clearly defines the choice that we have to make. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) at that crossroads offers us a path to expand opportunity in our country and to grow community. The gentleman from New York, as we make this important decision, knows that nothing less is at stake than our technological, industrial, and manufacturing base. The path that the gentleman from New York will take us down is one that will stop the hemorrhaging of U.S. jobs overseas. The gentleman from New York will strengthen our base. That is a decision we have to make. Are we going to strengthen that base, which is so essential to our national security, so essential to job creation in our country? Or are we going to abandon it? The gentleman from New York strengthens it. The Republican proposal abandons it. But I have to give the Republicans credit, I really have to give them credit, because they are consistent. They are consistently the handmaidens of the special interests at the expense of the public interest and the public good. Every opportunity they get to bring legislation to the floor, we see the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in that regard. That is most unfortunate. Because people across our country are suffering from job loss, from uncertainty in their lives, from their communities dissolving because businesses are leaving and what that means to America's families and America's communities. That is most unfortunate. The gentleman from New York on the other hand again takes us to a place which strengthens community and strengthens and expands opportunity. We have to view what the Republicans are doing within the context of their reckless economic policies. Here they come to the floor abandoning the American worker at a time when the Republican reckless policies have produced the worst job loss since Herbert Hoover. No President of the United States since Herbert Hoover has lost jobs in office, but these Republican policies have produced those losses. It has to be viewed within the context of, again, that uncertainty in American life. How sad. The gentleman from New York's proposal should be viewed in the context of a Democratic proposal to take the initiative on outsourcing, a proposal that says we must have innovation to create the jobs of the future, we must have education to produce the workforce of the future, and we must have job creation using the Tax Code that will reward businesses that stay here, create jobs here, and maintain jobs in the U.S.; and that is the distinct difference between what the Republicans are proposing and what the gentleman from New York is proposing today. Unfortunately, because the Republicans are once again afraid of ideas, they would not allow the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) proposal to come to the floor. They would not allow a substitute to be brought to the floor so we could have a fair airing of these different visions of America, because they are two different visions of America. Instead, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is confined to a motion to recommit, a parliamentary instrument that gives him only a few minutes to present his case. But his case is a clearly distinctly different one from the Republicans. We are talking about two different visions of America. The gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) is about supporting American values, of expanding opportunity again through innovation, education, using the Tax Code for job creations, rewarding those who keep jobs here in the U.S. It recognizes the reality of the global economy and wants to make the U.S. manufacturers the most competitive in the world with the most productive workers, the U.S. workers, in the world. So I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his sense of responsibility to the American worker, to the American economy, for his sense of responsibility that we all have to make the future better and not have an erosion of jobs in our country but of an enhancing of opportunity. And I thank him for what he is doing as far as a sense of communities is concerned because that is a strong American value that is being seriously undermined by again the erosion of our manufacturing base and what that does to communities across the country. So I urge my colleagues as they stand at this crossroad to choose the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) vision of America. They can do so by supporting his motion to recommit. They can do so by rejecting the Republicans' ill-conceived legislation and voting ``no'' on final passage.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my colleagues, Mr. Stark and Ms. Lee, and myself, to offer tribute to Leslie Reif, who died on February 7, 2004. Leslie Reif devoted himself in exceptional ways to service in the communities in which he lived and worked. He served the Oakland community by choosing a career in public education, and bringing his exceptional talents to first and fourth grade students at the Jefferson Elementary School in Oakland. Mr. Reif served the San Francisco community by demonstrating an abiding concern for others in his neighborhood of Bernal Heights, and at his faith community at the First Unitarian Universalist Society of San Francisco on Franklin Street. At the Jefferson Elementary School, Leslie Reif wore many hats. He was a fourth grade classroom teacher, responsible for mathematics, English, writing, geography and other subjects. Beyond his classroom, Mr. Reif was the school coordinator for the Martin Luther King Oratorical Fest held each year in February. During the fest, classes perform poems, plays and music to honor the memory of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and to advance his goal of equality for all persons. For the last 2 years, Mr. Reifs class placed first at the Jefferson Elementary Fest and then went on to place second and win a medal at the regional competition encompassing all schools in Oakland. Leslie Reif could always be counted on to help other teachers hang photographs and educational exhibits in their classrooms, be a sounding board for advice or just to lend a sympathetic ear when someone was having a bad day. Mr. Reif was also the Fourth Grade teacher representative on the Faculty Council, a group that handles issues that affect working conditions at the school. Mostly, those who knew him described him as a caring individual and a tireless teacher. Mr. Reif typically arrived at school at 7:15 in the morning and often stayed late into the afternoon correcting papers, setting up the classroom for the next day, working on his lesson plan, directing extra-curricular activities or assisting other teachers with their own classroom projects. There is perhaps no better testament to his contribution to the students at Jefferson Elementary than in their own words and those of other teachers who were his colleagues there. On the Monday morning following his death, the school placed a giant banner in the central corridor for students to express their feelings. That banner, large as it was (ten feet long and four feet tall), turned out to be too small. Within hours, it was filled with messages of sadness, loss, love and grief. Another banner was added. When that one filled up, yet a third was put out. By the next day, that one had been filled as well. The messages are poignant and speak volumes about the respect and love that his students felt for him. Many of the messages were surrounded by hearts. For example, one elaborately decorated, bleeding heart contained the Spanish words for ``Rest in Peace''--``Que en Paz descanse, Maestro, Reif'' A few others: ``I remember your kindness. I will miss you bunches.'' ``I'm sad but have happy memories.'' ``Dear Mr. Reif, I hope your family will never forget you.'' ``You were a wonderful teacher. I miss you. I love you.'' ``The school will be your home.'' ``I miss you very much. You were my best teacher.'' A Kindergarten class that barely knew Mr. Reif put up his picture and surrounded it with lighted candles in tribute. The students in his current class also wrote touching letters to Mr. Reifs family. Several referred to Mr. Reifs concern that his students not be the victims of violence, a real concern of his after he was held up at gunpoint one morning while parking near the school. Said one student, ``He was helpful by telling us not to open the door because someone could come in and shoot us . . . that it would be better if someone shoots him than someone shoots us.'' Another student wrote to Mr. Reifs son, Daniel, ``He was a really nice man. I bet he was a very good father.'' Many referred to the academic achievements they made under his direction, such as the ability to write properly composed letters, and to his efforts to teach them good manners. Similarly, fellow teachers at the school are honoring Mr. Reifs achievements and contributions by having a plaque made up in his honor and memory, which will be placed on the lectern in the auditorium which is used at all school assemblies and the Martin Luther King Oratorical Fest. In addition, a scholarship fund has been established in his name by the Marcus A. Foster Educational Institute in co-sponsorship with the Oakland Education Association. Mr. Speaker, Leslie Reif was the kind of teacher students remember 10 and 20 and even 40 years later, because he made a real difference in their young lives. He began each morning by having his students recite ``The Happiness Formula,'' a statement written by a former colleague that promotes non-violence, high self-esteem and kindness to others. They will remember him for his tireless dedication to excellence, his infectious optimism, and his deep caring for them and their achievements. He will be remembered as a man who loved working with children. That public education became his vocation is not terribly surprising. When he was only 16, he was already teaching younger children to play chess, a particular talent of his, and tutoring public school students in New York City, where he grew up. He was, in fact, born in New York City, educated at Bowdoin College and Princeton University, from which he received his B.A. Cum Laude, and Columbia University's School of Journalism, from which he received a Masters Degree. He moved to the San Francisco Bay Area in 1987, and had been a resident of San Francisco's Bernal Heights neighborhood since 1989. His was a friendly and familiar face to neighborhood residents, shopkeepers and others. He always had a warm greeting on the street or in a store and became involved in community events and activities. For example, when Mr. Reifs son, Daniel Reif, started attending kindergarten at the Paul Revere Elementary School 6 years ago, Mr. Reif volunteered extensively in school activities. He met and was mentored and inspired by the Principal of Paul Revere at the time, Randy Haves. Not one to allow the inspiration of a great educator to go to waste, Mr. Reif had, within a year, obtained emergency teaching credentials to be a first grade classroom teacher at Jefferson Elementary in Oakland across the bay, and had gone back to school to gain his full teaching credentials. It was only the first step in his involvement at Jefferson Elementary. Leslie Reif was a member of the First Unitarian Universalist Society of San Francisco, where a memorial service was held for him on February 11. More than 150 people attended, including several of his students and their parents. He is remembered by church members for his involvement in the Forums Committee and the children's Religious Education program. Mr. Reif died of complications from an epileptic seizure. In the last decade, Mr. Reif had helped educate others about epilepsy, including working as a health educator for the former Epilepsy League of the East Bay, now the Epilepsy Foundation of Northern California. His death helps to illustrate how much more needs to be done to learn more about, to treat and ultimately to find a cure for this neurological disorder. Finally, last but certainly not least, Leslie Reif was a loving husband to his wife, Millie Phillips, a devoted father to his son Daniel Reif, and an attentive and supporting stepfather to Ms. Phillips' son, Jeffrey Morgan. Mr. Reif was born to an Irish Catholic mother and a Czech Jewish father, who emigrated to the United States in 1940. It is not surprising that the term used most often by his friends to describe him is the Yiddish term ``mensch.'' He was a kind, modest man who downplayed most of his own accomplishments, while working hard to encourage the success of others. That is the lasting legacy he leaves to his family, his school, our communities and our country.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, with the death of Ronald Reagan and the dignity with which he left us, there is truly mourning in America. If the meaning of a life can be measured by the hearts touched by one's death, the outpouring of grief at the death of our 40th President speaks to the distinctly American life that was Ronald Wilson Reagan. We Californians mourn Ronald Reagan as our Governor; all Americans mourn Ronald Reagan as our President; and people the world over mourn Ronald Reagan, the passionate voice for freedom. Today a grateful Nation remembers Ronald Reagan the man. We remember his indomitable optimism and abiding love of country. Ronald Reagan understood the greatness of America has always been the character of the American people. As Americans, we have always dared to dream. And so President Reagan appealed to the enduring belief that sustains us as a people: That America's best days are yet to come. We remember his leadership. Those of us on this side of the aisle may not have always stood with him on matters of policy, but we always knew where he stood, as he did us, when it came to matters of principle. And though firm in his convictions, President Reagan was not afraid of compromise. Indeed, the lifelong crusader against communism will be remembered for signing the first agreement with the Soviet Union to actually destroy nuclear weapons. We remember his eloquence. After the loss of our Challenger astronauts, President Reagan consoled a grieving Nation. And whether in front of the Berlin Wall, or overlooking the beaches of Normandy, he echoed the democratic aspirations of freedom-loving people everywhere. We remember his grace and humor. This is a story that perhaps our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), understands and appreciates better than most in the Chamber. When Ronald Reagan was Governor of California, he came to the legislative chamber to deliver the State of the State Address. Because it was near the time of his birthday, they wheeled in a birthday cake and sang Happy Birthday to then-Governor Reagan. I have to add at that time, the Speaker of the Assembly of California was a giant of a man, Jess Unruh, and who sometimes did not see eye to eye with then-Governor Reagan. They sang Happy Birthday, and Governor Reagan blew out the candles. Someone said, ``Governor, did you make a wish?'' Mr. Speaker, the Governor looked up and said, ``Yes, I made a wish, but it did not come true; he is still there,'' as he spoke to the then- speaker. At the end of the day, though, President Reagan knew whatever may divide us by party is dwarfed by what unites us as Americans. Speaker Tip O'Neill famously told of how he and the President clashed by day, but were friends after 6 p.m., prompting the President to begin his phone calls, ``Tip, is it after 6 p.m.?'' We remember Ronald Reagan's faith in his country, in his family, and in his God. In that poignant letter 10 years ago announcing his battle with Alzheimer's disease, President Reagan wrote, ``When the Lord calls me home, whenever that may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future. I know that for America, there will always be a bright new dawn ahead,'' that dawn referenced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). We remember Ronald Reagan's dignity, the dignity with which he lived and led our country, and the dignity with which he died, turning the long good-bye of his final years into a lesson for all of us. And all Americans, and I know everyone who serves in the Congress of the United States for sure, have been touched by the dignity, private strength and public grace of Nancy Reagan and the Reagan family to whom we offer our prayers and deepest condolences. Our Nation is in your debt for the care and love you gave our President and the dignity with which you held his hands at the end. I hope it is a comfort to Mrs. Reagan and the Reagan family that the whole world mourns their loss and is praying for them at this sad time. For his eloquent defense of freedom, for his leadership style of conviction and compromise, for his eternal optimism for the future, America pays tribute to President Ronald Wilson Reagan. May God bless Ronald Reagan, may God bless this country that he loved and led, may Ronald Reagan rest in peace.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Stephanie Herseth) be permitted to take the oath of office today. Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest, and no question has been raised with regard to her election.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as Members know, it is the custom of the House when a new Member is sworn in after a special election, the senior Member from that Member's State has the privilege of introducing the new Member to the House. Since South Dakota only has one Member of Congress, that is not possible today; and so I have that privilege. But I do want to acknowledge the escort committee to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth), and that does have a nice ring to it, and what a distinguished escort committee it is, indeed: our former colleague, the Democratic leader in the United States Senate, Tom Daschle, and another former colleague from the House of Representatives, the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, Tim Johnson. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth) will bring to this House of Representatives the values of the heartland of America and a voice for her generation. She comes from a very distinguished political family in South Dakota. Her grandfather was Governor; her parents were public servants, very respected in South Dakota. She comes here, though, to make her own mark and to make the people of South Dakota very, very proud. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to recognize the distinguished gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me time and for his exceptional service and leadership as chair of the Human Rights Caucus of the House. I also want to acknowledge the great work and leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). He has been a champion for human rights, and it has been my privilege to work with him over the years to promote international human rights. I thank him for his accommodation this evening. Mr. Speaker, the forward march of freedom has often been advanced by brave souls who defied the powers of their day to demand the liberties and human rights to which all people everywhere are entitled. This week the world pays tribute to the brave souls of Tiananmen Square who 15 years ago stood up for freedom, only to be met with a hail of bullet and a new era of repression. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), as well as the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) in sponsoring this resolution that remembers and reaffirms. We remember the courage of the heroes of Tiananmen, and we reaffirm our Nation's commitment to the principles of freedom and democracy of which they dreamed. In doing so, this resolution keeps alive the spirit of Tiananmen Square. The spirit of Tiananmen lives in the hearts of all freedom-loving people. We remember how millions of ordinary students, workers and citizens marched in peace. How they raised the Goddess of Democracy and the image of our own Statue of Liberty. How they quoted our own Founding Fathers. We remember with sadness and outrage how the so-called People's Liberation Army was unleashed on its own defenseless people, slaughtering thousands and searing into our consciences forever one of the most enduring images of the 25th century, the picture of a lone man before a tank, bringing a line of tanks to a grinding halt. Fifteen springs later, the spirit of Tiananmen lives on in the prison cells across China. Today, we once again call on Beijing to release the thousands of Tiananmen activists held to this day and all the prisoners of conscience whose only crime was to demand their basic human rights. The spirit of Tiananmen lives on in the exiles who fled their beloved homeland and who today carry on the struggle. In San Francisco, which I have the privilege of sharing representation with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), we are proud that many of these talented young people have enriched our community. But even as we observe their celebrations to our Nation, we work for a day when they may return if they so choose to their own nation, a free and democratic China. For too long the United States has pursued a policy of trickle-down liberty. First, economic freedom and then they said political freedom will follow. The 15 years since Tiananmen have exposed this policy as the illusion that it is. For a billion Chinese, freedom remains a dream deferred. After all these years, journalists, activists, academics, workers and religious believers are still persecuted and, Mr. Speaker, tortured. As this 15th anniversary nears, Beijing is still harassing and arresting dissidents and families of the Tiananmen victims. Meanwhile, Chinese elites are enriched by global trade. And despite more than a decade of concessions from Washington, our trade deficit with China has grown from $2 billion a year to over $2 billion a week, to a dangerous $124 billion a year. The highest tribute we could pay on this anniversary would be to use our political and economic influence to advance the reforms advocated 15 years ago. Finally, the spirit of Tiananmen lives on in the hearts of the Chinese people, especially those in Hong Kong who have tasted freedom. In taking to the streets to demand democracy, the brave people of Hong Kong have been a stirring example to the world. On this anniversary, U.S. resolve in facing Beijing would send a clear message to democratic reformers throughout Asia. Democracy in Asia is as crucial there as it is in the rest of the world. So it is that the spirit of Tiananmen endures and inspires. Tanks and troops may crush a protest, but they can never extinguish the flame of freedom that burns in every human heart. Mr. Speaker, on this day with this resolution we say to the people of China, including the people of Hong Kong and freedom-loving people everywhere, your cause is our cause. We will never forget. We will never forget. And in doing so we reaffirm our commitment to a common dream: the day when the world's most populous nation can at last be called the world's largest democracy.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues and all the women Members of Congress in cosponsoring this resolution and honoring the contributions of the women who served the homefront during World War II. Symbolized by ``Rosie the Riveter,'' these women answered the call to aid America at a pivotal time in our Nation's history. Millions of ``Rosies'' produced the planes, ships, tanks, trucks, guns, and ammunition that America needed to win the war. They were the indispensable workforce at home that helped our Nation achieve victory abroad. The Rosies not only equipped our country to win the war, they also made it a better place for women. These courageous and hardworking women broke down traditional barriers surrounding women and the workplace. Shattering stereotypes, the Rosies were not only successful workers but were also dedicated wives and mothers. The Rosies created new opportunities for women in all parts of our society. They blazed a trail that American women continue to follow today. Sixty years later, ``Rosie the Riveter'' has become a lasting symbol of women's rights and an icon of the can-do spirit of women. As the famous Rosie poster said, ``We can do it.'' The Rosies helped build our military at a critical time, and they helped build a better America. We are all forever in their debt.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize the 100th Anniversary of the Flood Building of San Francisco and to have the opportunity to express my appreciation to the Flood family for their immeasurable contributions to the City of San Francisco over four generations. It was a great pleasure to attend the Flood Building Centennial Celebration on April 16 and to celebrate with members of the Flood family. I particularly want to thank Jim Flood and Judy Wilbur for carrying on the outstanding traditions of their distinguished family. The Flood Building was built by James L. Flood in 1904 as a tribute to his father, James Clair Flood. Architect Albert Pissis, a master of Beaux-Arts classicism, designed the Classic Revival structure, along with many other great works throughout San Francisco. At the time it was built, the 12-story Flood Building was the largest building in San Francisco. The building's history is one of survival. It remained standing after both the 1906 and 1989 earthquakes that devastated San Francisco. In 1950, it was scheduled to be destroyed and replaced by a three-story modern structure, but the building was saved at the last minute when the Federal government seized it through the right of eminent domain. At the time, Washington was in desperate need of a San Francisco-based office to help manage the Korean War, and the Flood Building offered an ideal solution. The Federal government returned the building to the Flood family in 1953. Today, Jim Flood--James Clair Flood II, named after his great grandfather--owns, manages, and has his office in the building, making it San Francisco's oldest family-owned commercial building. The Flood Building has flourished under his management, undergoing a $15 million renovation to restore the building to its original style. Architecturally, it is the most significant commercial building in San Francisco, and it was named a city landmark in 1982. I join the Flood family and so many of my constituents in celebrating the 100th anniversary of this San Francisco treasure.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I rise to pay tribute to the life and work of my longtime friend, Susan T. Kennedy, who passed away on April 17, 2004. Susie was a great woman and an exceptional public servant. We will miss her terribly. Susie's life was one of service and political and community activism. Beginning with her work with the Service Employees Union, Susie was a tireless advocate of labor. At the age of 21, she was elected to the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee--the youngest ever to serve--and was reelected for the next 25 years. In 1962, Susie joined the staff of Democratic Assemblyman Phillip Burton. Upon his election to Congress, she became his Administrative Assistant, supervising his District Office in San Francisco. She was his trusted advisor, and he depended on her great political instincts, judgment, and understanding of the people of San Francisco. Susie was absolutely committed to the constituents and elected officials she served. After working for both Phil and Sala Burton for 25 years, she graciously and expertly helped with my transition to Congress after I won a special election in 1987 to succeed Sala Burton. I will never forget her support and friendship. Susie later joined with the Golden Gate National Recreation Area to help create a lasting memorial to Congressman Phil Burton. Susan Kennedy was a devoted wife, mother, sister, and friend. To her sons, Marc and Frank, and to her sisters and brothers, Dolores, Bernie, Mary, Walter, Kathleen and Tom, thank you for sharing your beloved Susie with us. Our thoughts and prayers are with all of her family at this sad time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), ranking member on the Committee on Rules. He and the Committee on Rules and staff, as well as other Members, know full well the quality of the excellence of the work of Charlie Johnson, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To the gentleman from California's (Mr. Dreier) question as to whether it was appropriate to table the resolution, I think we should have tabled the letter. Mr. Speaker, it is with personal and official pride that I rise to pay tribute to Charles Johnson on his retirement as House Parliamentarian and to thank him for his many years of outstanding service to this body. To praise Charlie Johnson is easy, and it is one thing that brings Democrats and Republicans together. I have only served for 17 years of Charlie's 40, and during that time I have observed, and we have all witnessed, profound changes in how this body conducts its business. But through every change and difficult time, the House has always been able to count on the expert, honest, and fair advice of Charlie Johnson. Charlie began his service in the House in 1964, as acknowledged by the Speaker, shortly after graduating from the University of Virginia Law School. When he was appointed House Parliamentarian in 1994, he joined a distinguished line that includes Clarence Cannon, Lewis Deschler, and Bill Brown. Think of this, my colleagues: Charlie is just the third Parliamentarian since 1928. Respected on both sides of the aisle, Charlie was first appointed by a Democratic Speaker, Speaker Tom Foley, and reappointed by Republican Speakers Newt Gingrich and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). Charlie exemplifies the best of this House. With his unquestioned integrity and keen intellect, he has consistently maintained the highest standards of nonpartisanship and scholarship for the Office of Parliamentarian. Charlie has guided us carefully, but firmly, through turbulent floor debates; and he knows of what we speak here and has provided sound and discreet advice to individual Members and staff. He has served as a mentor to the outstanding Parliamentarians that serve under him, among them his respected successor, John Sullivan. And we are all pleased with the Speaker's announcement that John Sullivan will be named the Parliamentarian; and that, of course, is the suggestion of Charlie Johnson. So respected is he that he can even suggest his own successor. On top of everything, Charlie Johnson is truly a kind man. The Speaker and others will reference Camp Dudley, one of his acts of kindness. As a San Franciscan, and, Charlie, I am going to spill the beans on you, I am delighted that Charlie is also a devoted San Francisco Giants fan. But Charlie is not just a fan. When he leaves us, he will take up his true calling as a major league batting practice pitcher, beginning with a Dodgers-Expos game soon. Perhaps, Mr. Leader, we can use our collective influence to have this event covered by C-SPAN. Maybe we could just do it right here on the floor and then it will be covered by C-SPAN. Although Charlie will relinquish his daily duties here, Charlie's dedication to this House, of course, will remain. Charlie will continue the difficult, but essential, work on the Precedents of the House of Representatives. Earlier this week when the Speaker told me of the news of Charlie's submitting this letter, which I agree should be tabled, I received the news with mixed emotions. We all know how great Charlie is as the Parliamentarian and what a great friend he is to many of us, but of course we want to see him go on after 40 years to fulfill himself personally in other ways. And so we know he will teach professionally at the University of Virginia Law School and he will collaborate with the Parliamentarian in the House of Commons of the U.K. on a book of parliamentary procedures that will surely be a great contribution on that important topic. But I was delighted to hear Charlie talk about his own personal plans. Of course he will have more time with his wonderful family, and he is very lucky his grandchildren live in the region. In fact, we are lucky his grandchildren live in the region because hopefully that will mean that Charlie will visit us frequently. As you leave us, Charlie, please go forth with the knowledge that anyone who values the work of this House of Representatives indeed values the work of democracy, is deeply in your debt, and that goes well beyond those of us who have served here, with the knowledge that you will be deeply missed and with the hope for us that you will visit us often. Good luck to you. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you to your family for sharing you with us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the question that President-to-be Ronald Reagan made famous in the debate in 1980: ``Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?'' The answer, of course, for most Americans is ``no.'' Under President Bush and the Republican Congress, most Americans have suffered. If you are a taxpayer, you are not better off. We went from a budget that was in balance in 1999, the deficit was zero, and on a path to a $5.6 trillion surplus to one now that is half a trillion dollars in debt this year alone. If you are a senior, you are not better off because prescription drug costs for seniors have skyrocketed 44 percent in the last 4 years. And what do they get but a hoax of a prescription drug bill. If you are a student, you are not better off because the Bush administration has underfunded the No Child Left Behind Act by $27 billion since 2001 and wants to cut funding for higher education by $1.3 billion while college tuition has increased by 28 percent. If you are a worker, you are not better off because 2.2 million jobs have been lost and the unemployment rate is 5.6 percent, one-third higher than the 4.2 percent when President Bush took office. And workers are not better off because wages have failed to keep pace with inflation. Wages rose a mere nickel between March and April. If you are a consumer, you are not better off because gas prices have increased from $1.26 to a record $2.01 a gallon since President Bush took office. In the next few days, we will be offering further lists of grievances of the reckless policies of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress. Clearly, we are not better off since President Bush took office.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate my constituent, Philip C. Hopewell, MD. The American Lung Association has awarded Dr. Hopewell, a leader in the fight against tuberculosis, the Edward Livingston Trudeau Medal to recognize his lifelong contribution to the prevention diagnosis and treatment of lung disease. In 1970, Dr. Hopewell took a brief sabbatical from his internal medicine residency program at the University of California San Francisco to work in war-torn Nigeria as a consultant to the Nigerian government on their tuberculosis control program. Dr. Hopewell's experience gave him first hand knowledge of the problems faced by developing countries in implementing effective tuberculosis control programs. More importantly, it gave Dr. Hopewell the belief that effective TB control programs can be established in the developing world. Since 1971, Dr. Hopewell has shared his expertise in designing and implementing TB control programs. Most recently, Dr. Hopewell has worked as vice-chair of the Strategic and Technical Advisory Group for the World Health Organization (WHO) Stop TB Department. In his capacity at the WHO-STOP TB Partnership, Dr. Hopewell has provided technical expertise to developing nations around the globe on development and implementation of effective TB programs. I first became aware of Dr. Hopewell's work about five years ago when we met to discuss increasing the U.S. committee to TB control at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). At that time, the USAID contribution to international TB control was essentially zero. Dr. Hopewell made it clear to all who would listen that TB control programs can work in the developing world and it is in our country's best interests to take an active role. Through Dr. Hopewell's work and the hard work of many others, the U.S. support for international TB control has grown. Yet there is more to be done, as Dr. Hopewell always reminds me. While the world has benefited from Dr. Hopewell's work, he has not ignored the problem of TB at home in San Francisco. Dr. Hopewell became involved in the San Francisco tuberculosis control program through his supervision of a contract by which clinical services were provided to the Department of Public Health. The affiliation of an academic institution and an effective public health tuberculosis control program has provided and continues to provide important opportunities for training and research in many aspects of tuberculosis control. This combination forms the foundation of the Frances J. Curry National Tuberculosis Center, directed by Dr. Hopewell. The Curry Center is one of three CDC-funded model centers in the country. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Hopewell is a teacher, a healer, a scientist and an international humanitarian. I join many throughout this country in recognizing and honoring Dr. Hopewell and his lifetime of achievement in the research, prevention and treatment of lung disease.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, for centuries, American has been enriched by our diverse and rapidly growing Asian American and Pacific Islander communities, and by the contributions that Native Hawaiians, Chamorros, and Samoans have made in their ancestral homelands. Since the 1700s, when Filipino immigrants settled in the Louisiana bayou and Chinese and Japanese immigrants worked the sugarcane fields of Hawaii, Asian American and Pacific Islander communities have worked hard to call America their home. In the face of prejudice and poverty, interment and exclusion, the Asian American and Pacific Islander community has always remained strong in spirit, proud of its heritage, and committed to making progress. Today, there are 11 million Asian American and Pacific Islanders in the United States, tracing roots to nearly 50 different countries and ethnic groups, each with distinct cultures, traditions, and histories. The achievement of the community demonstrates the critical role of civic participation in making the American Dream a reality. With more than 200 Asian American and Pacific Islanders running for elected office in the U.S. last year alone, the community's participation in politics ensures that its concerns are addressed at the highest levels of government. This Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, we salute such pioneers as Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole, who is 1903 became the first Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander to serve in Congress; Dilip Singh Saund, who in 1956 became the first Asian American elected to Congress; Hiram Leong Fong, who in 1959 became the first Asian American Senator; and my dear friend Patsy Mink, who in 1964 became the first Asian American woman elected to Congress. We also celebrate the political leadership of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders today. As the Leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives, I am proud to work in the Democratic leadership with Congressman Robert Matsui of California, the highest ranking Asian American in congressional history. We are both proud to lead the only truly diverse caucus in the Congress, which includes our great Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC). Under the leadership of Congressman Mike Honda of California, CAPAC has promoted greater understanding in Congress of the concerns of the Asian American and Pacific Islander community. CAPAC is fighting for educational opportunities for our children, for better access to health care including an end to minority health disparities, for real immigration reform, and to grow the economy and create good-paying jobs. This Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, we take pride in our history and the promise of our future and we rededicate ourselves to the fight to make the American Dream a reality for all.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time and for his tremendous leadership on behalf of the national security of our country. I also thank the gentleman for his attempt to develop a bipartisan resolution that would bring us all together and take the opportunity to send a true message to the world of democratic values. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, Secretary Rumsfeld came to the Congress and he briefed Members of the House of Representatives on the situation in Iraq. He neglected to tell Members of Congress that the situation in Iraq included this most unfortunate, disgraceful situation in the prison. He withheld that information from the Congress of the United States when he had full knowledge of it and apparently had full knowledge for a while. Indeed, that very evening, ``60 Minutes'' broke the story, a story it had been working on for a while. So why was Congress the last to know, especially on a day when the Secretary was briefing the Congress on the situation in Iraq? The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services has said repeatedly in the course of this debate that this information was made public in January by a public statement by General Kimmett. I do not know when that constituted keeping Congress informed; and if that is the standard, if a sentence that does not really explain the situation expressed in a press conference in Iraq meets the standard for informing Congress, then we are in a lot more trouble than we even thought. Please do not bring that up as an example of ``letting us know,'' because I do not think anybody, even within the administration, would have called that sufficient notification to Congress. Since last Thursday when the Secretary of Defense withheld information from the Congress, the Senate has held robust hearings. They stopped in their tracks. They stopped the business of the Senate, which was the reauthorization of the Defense Act, and went into committee as the Committee on Armed Services because of the urgency of this matter. Yet this House had to be dragged kicking and screaming into having hearings on the subject. We should have hearings not only in the Committee on Armed Services, but in the Committee on International Relations. We should be having these hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary as well. We should be having these hearings in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, it touches so many jurisdictions in this House, because we must get to the bottom of this. So today we have this resolution that has come to the floor, missing an opportunity to send a very clear, forceful, values-based message to the world and to the American people about who we are and what we stand for and what we will not tolerate in the behavior of our people. We all agree that our troops, our men and women in uniform, and even the civilians over there, are courageous, patriotic, and have acted with great courage. They are willing to sacrifice their lives. We owe them our deepest gratitude and respect and our prayers. This resolution acknowledges that fact, and it is right to do so. Some U.S. personnel, military and civilian, abused Iraqi prisoners in ways that are shocking and reprehensible. The resolution acknowledges that fact and deplores it. Unfortunately, by including a number of causes that seek to compare life in Iraq after the invasion with conditions that existed before, the resolution creates an inference that whatever post-invasion improvements exist, somehow they mitigate the abhorrent nature of the treatment of the prisoners. These ``whereases'' have no place in the same resolution. The resolution should be focused tightly on the scandal and the need to find out why it occurred and who should be held accountable. Diffusing the focus conceals an important fact: this scandal increases the danger to our troops in Iraq, makes their mission more difficult to accomplish, and threatens the interests of the United States around the world. Even with a concerted effort in which a better-crafted resolution could have played an important part, it will be a very long time before the standing of the United States is restored in the eyes of the world, unless we face up to this matter. Congressional oversight of the war in Iraq has not been aggressive enough. The administration's failure to provide accountability for its policies and an accounting of the money already provided has not been questioned adequately. Compounding that record of inaction by not investigating this matter thoroughly will be inexcusable. This resolution could have called clearly for congressional investigations, to include a review of the role that the U.S. civilian contractors and other civilians may have played in it. That suggestion was outright rejected by the Republicans, saying we will not include the investigation and the contractors in this resolution; we will not add it. And it begs the question, Why? Today, America has an opportunity to show the world our greatness by sending a message to the American people and to the world that we deplore this conduct, that we understand the significance of these abuses in the eyes of the Arab world, and that we will act to uncover the facts to find out who is responsible and to make sure that it will never happen again. Every opportunity we get, we will always offer our praise and gratitude to our troops. We could have done that in a resolution that would have had bipartisan support, because it was very important that we send a message to the Arab world that we do understand the significance of these abuses to them. This is very, very, very significant; but it has been lost in the resolution before us. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit to be offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), which delivers a message that truly reflects America's values. It does so clearly and forcefully, and there is a reason for that. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has been a champion for human rights for as long as he has been in the Congress, and probably longer. His leadership on the Helsinki Commission, his bipartisan work on these issues gives him standing and authority to speak in a way, again, that clearly reflects America's values. The Republican resolution does not do that; the Hoyer motion to recommit does. Let us leave no doubt in the hearts and the minds of the world that we will live by the principles that we preach.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of sadness that I rise to pay tribute to Mary McGrory, who passed away 2 weeks ago at the age of 85. During her magnificent career with the Washington Star and The Washington Post, Mary informed and engaged her readers on every major event of the past half century. Mary was a keen observer, an elegant writer and a tenacious journalist; and she was an inspiration to so many women. It was a joy to read her columns, and of course, we miss her terribly. That is why I am so pleased to join my colleagues here today, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who was a very close personal friend of Mary McGrory, and our colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who is in the Chamber now, as well as our colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who had the honor of being pallbearers for Mary. What a tribute. We loved Mary for her insights. No matter how many reporters covered an event, Mary always found the small detail that had large implications others may have overlooked. She noted the manner in which Richard Nixon's staff reacted to his retirement press conference in 1962, the bearing of Secretary of Army Robert Stevens during the Army-McCarthy hearings, and so many other fine points. At times, it seemed that Mary grasped the significance of everything that she saw. She saw nearly everything. We loved Mary for her diligence. She was one of the hardest-working people in Washington. Even into her eighties, she would come to Capitol Hill to see firsthand the events of the day. She was always willing to have a cub reporter, even a senior editor, take her bags; but she would never ask someone else to take her notes. She was legendary for looking after every detail, even writing out the instructions for her own funeral. She had directed her former Washington Star colleague, Phil Gailey, to talk about her beloved Star in the eulogy, and she told him: ``Don't go blubbering on me the way you do when you read a dog story with a sad ending.'' Mary's insight and her industry were matched only by her eloquence. We loved Mary for choosing every word with care. Mary had a vocabulary that would send her editor reaching for his dictionary, and when she wrote about a retiring Congresswoman once that her ``black eyes still snap with the old fire,'' she gave her readers in eight words a better understanding of the congresswoman than lesser writers did in eight paragraphs. From the Army-McCarthy hearings that brought her to Washington's attention, to her Watergate coverage for which she won the Pulitzer Prize, to her chronicling of the Iraq War debate which proved to be her swan song, her writing enriched our national dialogue. Those of us who were inspired by President John F. Kennedy, as she was, took sad solace in her loving reporting on his assassination. Here, in the Congress, we were so fortunate to have the opportunity to honor Mary McGrory in March and to see the outpouring of affection and gratitude for her career. We were joined by many Members of the House of Representatives, many members of the United States Senate, many of her colleagues from the press corps. We were her fans, and we were there for her. God blessed America with Mary McGrory, a beautiful writer, a wonderful person. Her passing is a tremendous loss for us all. She loved Boston. She loved being Irish, but she also loved Italy; and she had a bond always with the Italians. She visited Italy frequently. She loved her garden. We all know how much she loved her garden. One could talk all day about Mary McGrory and never be able to capture her in the way she would capture her. Nonetheless, it was an honor and a privilege, and, indeed, a joy to be able to call her friend. Again, I know that I speak for many in this Chamber who will say thank you, Mary, for what you have given us. Thank you for being a blessing to our country. We will miss you sadly. Thank you.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the tremendous leadership of two of our colleagues, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), and the 30-Something Working Group for taking the lead on this vital effort to talk to the next generation of Americans about issues that they care about. Tonight, during the Special Order, our 30-Something Working Group has 1 hour to speak to the young people of America. It consists of 14 Members of Congress in their 30s, as it said. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is in his 20s, just turned 30. All regions of the United States are represented in the group and all aspects and the beautiful diversity of our country: the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson); the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis); the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford); the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson); the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy); the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind); the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin); the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen); the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan); the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez); the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith); and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner). How proud we are of them. Democrats are committed to listening to and working with young people on issues they care about and that impact their lives, jobs, the economy, health care, higher education, globalization, and protecting the beautiful environment that is God's creation. Over the past 8 months, our 30-Something Members have been on the road across America beginning a new dialogue with the next generation. Thirty-Something Members have traveled to Louisiana, Alabama, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Michigan, Florida, through the States that I have mentioned, their home States, talking to young people to hear their views on critical issues. Two weeks ago, the 30-Something Working Group cohosted the Next Generation Democratic Summit. More than 250 18- to 30-year-olds came to Capitol Hill to discuss their concerns with Members of Congress and to share their insights about how to inspire other young people to be more engaged in government. Today, we are launching another part of our effort to reach out to the next generation. This regular 30-Something hour is an exciting opportunity for House Democrats to have a national discussion with young Americans across the country. We certainly invite response from the young Americans. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues well know, all of us here in Congress have a responsibility to the next generation. We have received a precious gift, a privilege, of representing our districts in Congress and the wonderful responsibility to make the future better for the next generation. Not only do we have that responsibility as a Congress, but each of us has a responsibility to do that. Every decision that we make has an important bearing on the future. No one is impacted more by that than our young people. So I am so very proud of our 30-Something Working Group and the leadership that they have assumed under the exceptional leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to join my colleagues in honoring a true public servant, John R. Miller, as he begins the retirement he so richly deserves. For the past 28 years, John has belonged to that small but essential group of dedicated, nonpartisan professionals who quietly ensure that the House of Representatives functions smoothly and serves the people of the United States. John has served as Assistant Counsel, Deputy Counsel, and, for the past eight years, as the Law Revision Counsel. The Law Revision Counsel supervises a staff of 12 attorneys who, along with several editors, administrative aides, and technical specialists, are charged with preparing and publishing the United States Code. The Code is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is indispensable to legislators, lawyers, and anyone with an interest in the rule of law. Under the superb leadership of John Miller, the office has rightfully earned a reputation for excellence. John's lifetime of service to our country should be a source of pride to him and his family. On behalf of the House Democratic Caucus, it is my pleasure to commend and thank John for his great career in the House of Representatives and to wish him all the best in his retirement.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. That has a nice ring to it. Thank you very much, Larry, for yielding your time. I am pleased to join our very distinguished Speaker in welcoming you to the floor of the House of Representatives. You are an inspiration to us. You built a strong foundation. Mr. Michel, it is always an honor to be in the same room with you. As minority leader I understand part of your role. I have a certain level of impatience with it myself. But I am pleased to see that bipartisanship is alive and well, at least among the former Members in the Congress of the United States. Good for you for honoring Sam Nunn. Sam Nunn is a great American recognized throughout our country even though he has not been in office for a few years now. He has always been an inspiration to us in and out of public office. He is always in public service, and his initiative and leadership on Nunn-Lugar is as valid and as important an initiative now as it was then, perhaps even more needed today. You were a leader. You saw early what the need would be, and it is an answer for us. So thank you, Sam Nunn, for your great leadership, and thank you to all of you for honoring Sam Nunn. I had to go to a discussion about continuation of government, so forgive me for being in and out. As I look around, I see so many friends on both sides of the aisle, and it should not be a partisan issue, but I am afraid it has come down to that again today. But any thoughts that you have about, one thought was that the Members of Congress could suggest their successor in time if an act of terrorism hits Congress. I said that would be good, you would not have to change the boards. We would just have the same names up there. We could be well represented by our very able family members, our constituents would. But you come at a time when you have a great deal, should we say, of lively debate on the issues. Seeing you reminds us of another time when we were able to work out these issues more easily and more amicably. Hopefully that day will return soon. And when it does, it will be because of the influence you all have on all of us. Congratulations on your good work on Congress to Campus. I am not surprised that it is such a success with David Skaggs and Mr. Lightfoot, I do not know where he is now, and all the others working on it, going from 6 to 40 campuses in a short period of time. Thank you for making public service more appealing to young people. Hopefully those of us still in office will be able to follow your lead on that as well. Welcome. Good luck in your deliberations. You are a source of strength and inspiration to us. And I want to extend the greetings of all of the Members of the House and Democratic Caucus to every single one of you. Again, Mr. Michel, a special welcome to you always.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in March, we celebrated Women's History Month. We remembered those who have contributed to our progress, we recognized those who are changing our communities today, and we rededicated ourselves to improving the lives of women. Women want what men want: a fair opportunity to succeed, a safe and prosperous America, good paying jobs, better access to health care, and the best possible education for our children. Women want a secure retirement, the freedom to make the most of our lives and to make our own choices, and the chance to shape the future of our Nation. Yet in terms of policies to assist women, we are lagging behind. Half of those currently living in poverty are single mothers. More than 3.8 million women are looking for work. Women are still paid only 80 cents to a man's dollar. And the Republican controlled Congress and the Bush administration continue to wage an assault on our reproductive rights, believing they can make better choices than women and their doctors. To open doors of opportunity for women, I am proud to support policies in Congress that promote equality such as the FAIRNESS Act, which protects workers from discrimination on the basis of race, age, disability, or gender. I have long been a strong supporter of legislation to demand equal pay for equal work. My colleagues and I support legislation to increase the minimum wage to help single mothers and working poor women provide adequately for themselves and their families. In every field, we must and will be equal partners in determining the future. Women represent more than half the population and are among the most knowledgeable and important thinkers in every field of policy, from science to education to health care to national security. Women in government have made great gains but still face continued challenges. When I was first elected to Congress in 1987, there were only 16 women in the entire House of Representatives and only 2 in the Senate. Today, there are 62 women in the House and 13 in the Senate. However, of the nearly 12,000 Members who have served in Congress throughout history, only 209--less than 2 percent--have been women. From 1916, when Jeanette Rankin of Montana became the first woman elected to Congress, until I was elected Democratic Whip in 2001, no woman had ever served in the top Congressional leadership. In March, it was my privilege as House Democratic Leader to honor three magnificent women: journalist Mary McGrory, the late Congresswoman Mary T. Norton and civil rights leader Dr. Dorothy Height. On March 2, I hosted a reception for Mary McGrory, the pioneering reporter for the Washington Star and Washington Post who has delighted so many readers and inspired so many women. For more than 50 years, she has walked the halls of Congress, interviewing Members, covering Congressional proceedings, and providing a voice for progressive issues. First, as a reporter for the Washington Star and then with the Washington Post, she earned a reputation for her brilliant reporting and her ability to get to the heart of any debate. She also earned a Pulitzer Prize--the first to a woman for commentary--for her coverage of Watergate. On March 18, several women Members gathered in my office to unveil a portrait of the late Congresswoman Mary Norton of New Jersey, who in 1924 became the first Democratic woman elected to the House. She was the first person in modern times to chair three major committees. A solid supporter of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, her finest hour may have been passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, while Chair of the House Labor Committee. She was instrumental in raising the minimum wage from 40 cents to 75 cents per hour. In a marvelous ceremony in the Rotunda of the Capitol on March 24, Dr. Dorothy Height received the Congressional Gold Medal, the most distinguished award bestowed by the U.S. Congress. The struggle for equality in America in the 20th century--for civil rights, for women's rights, for voting rights, for human rights--is the story of Dr. Height's life. At age 92, she remains a beacon to her own generation and generations to follow. Countless young people have been inspired by her idealism, strengthened by her courage, and guided by her faith. She has empowered these young people to make a difference by her own passion for justice. It is a great honor to be the first woman to lead a party in the House of Representatives. When I was first elected to that position, we made history. Now we are making progress. As we celebrate the achievements of women throughout history and work toward progress of our own, we are inspired by the words of Eleanor Roosevelt: ``It's up to the women!''