Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on so many issues.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the debates that we have on the floor of the House affect millions of Americans: families, senior citizens, veterans, students, and children. We all bring stories of men and women and families from our districts--the challenges facing our neighbors, the urgent need to solve them.

Today, we address an issue that takes the lives of thousands of Americans each year: asbestos exposure. Yet we do not have to look back only to our districts on this scourge; we only need to look into the lives of some who have served in this body.

I am very honored today, as I know some of my colleagues are as well, that Susan Vento, wife of our former colleague Bruce Vento who served with such distinction in the Congress with some of us some years ago, is with us. Bruce Vento was affected by asbestos exposure. It took his life.

I wish to place in the Record Susan Vento's letter, Mr. Chairman, and just to say that in the letter Susan says:

During the consideration of this legislation in the

Judiciary Committee, two other women who have been affected

by the ravages of asbestos and I requested to have a chance

to testify about how the legislation would affect people like

us. Our request was denied. To date, not one victim of

asbestos exposure or an affected family member has been

allowed to be heard on this legislation. The only people who

would be directly affected by this bill have been completely

shut out of the process.

It goes on to say the so-called FACT Act--and this letter doesn't say ``the

so-called.'' That is my characterization. The letter says:

The FACT Act drastically erodes the decades of work Bruce

and so many of you have invested in helping those who could

not help themselves. If this bill passes, it will be a

serious setback for Americans who expect their elected

representatives to work on their behalf. Instead of helping

those who suffer from the diseases caused by asbestos, it

will reward those who have perpetuated the diseases.

I would also like to talk about another of our colleagues who is affected by this: Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy. Carolyn McCarthy serves in this Congress with us. She is a distinguished Congresswoman from the State of New York. Congresswoman McCarthy's father and brother were career boilermakers. Each night, they brought home asbestos fibers in their clothes. Over time, exposure to this asbestos affected Congresswoman McCarthy herself. Today, she is battling asbestos-related lung cancer.

Her story is like the stories of countless Americans across the country. It is up to us to strengthen the health of those suffering from exposure. It is up to us to act in their names, whether they suffer from cancer today or face the prospect of severe illness in the future.

Yet the Republican measure we consider today does not meet this challenge. Like far too many Republican bills in this Congress, this legislation only serves to make matters worse for the American people. The so-called--there it is again--the so-called FACT Act actually harms the American people--that is a fact--and hinders the ability of asbestos victims to obtain compensation.

How does it do this? This bill would deny cancer victims the assistance and simple justice they deserve. It would even delay compensation beyond the life of a person suffering from asbestos- related cancer and illnesses. It would invade the privacy of thousands of Americans, and it would pose a particularly detrimental impact on veterans of the United States Armed Forces who have been disproportionately affected by asbestos.

Contrary to the claims of the bill's proponents, there is no need for this bill. State laws provide for adequate disclosure. There is no evidence of systematic fraud in the asbestos trust system.

In short, this bill is unnecessary, it is mean-spirited and will never become the law of the land.

The Republican majority has little time left on the legislative calendar this year: just 13 days between now and December 31, according to the schedule they have given us. In that short window, the House should focus on the most pressing challenges--priorities like job creation, economic growth, comprehensive immigration reform, or deficit reduction. Instead, our Republican colleagues have chosen to waste time on another message bill to nowhere.

In the name of Bruce Vento and Congresswoman McCarthy, in the name of our friends, family members, and constituents facing the daily challenges of asbestos exposure, let's work together on steps to strengthen the health of the American people. Let's preserve the privacy and well-being of asbestos victims and all American families.

We can do this by voting ``no'' on this legislation.

Please Oppose H.R. 982, the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act

(FACT Act)

November 11, 2013.

Dear Representative: My name is Susan Vent, and I'm writing

to express my strong opposition to H.R. 982, called the

Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act (FACT Act). My

husband was the late Congressman Bruce F. Vento who served

for almost 24 years in the House of Representatives

representing Minnesota's Fourth Congressional District. He

died from mesothelioma in 2000 within eight months of being

diagnosed.

Mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer caused by asbestos

exposure. Bruce was exposed through his work as a laborer

years before we met or became involved in public life. He

told his constituency about his diagnosis in early February

2000 when he announced why he would not run for re-election.

On February 14, he had his lung surgically removed and then

began an aggressive treatment regimen at the Mayo Clinic.

It was not enough. My husband died three days after his

60th birthday in October 2010, just eight and one-half months

after the diagnosis. With his death, our country lost a hard-

working and humble public servant years before his time.

Bruce's parents, children, grandchildren and I lost so much

more.

Bruce dedicated himself as a tireless and effective

advocate for the environment, for working people and for the

disadvantaged. During his time in Congress, he was well

respected by members of both parties. He served as ranking

member and chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands and also served on

the House Banking Committee.

During the consideration of this legislation in the

Judiciary Committee, two other women who have been affected

by the ravages of asbestos and I requested to have a chance

to testify about how the legislation would affect people like

us. Our request was denied. To date, not one victim of

asbestos exposure or an affected family member has been

allowed to be heard on the legislation. The only people who

would be directly affected by this bill have been completely

shut out of the process.

This legislation is premised on a myth that fraud is a

problem in asbestos-related litigation and that transparency

must be required of those suffering from asbestos-caused

diseases and their families. Such transparency would require

mesothelioma patients and their families and others suffering

from asbestos-related diseases to divulge personal

information on public websites, including portions of their

Social Security numbers, information about their personal

finances and information about their children. Extensive and

reputable research has disproved the fraud claims.

I find it highly ironic that the asbestos industry is

seeking transparency, of all things. If the companies that

are pushing this bill really cared about transparency, they

wouldn't have concealed what they knew regarding the lethal

nature of exposure to asbestos and hundreds of thousands of

Americans would not have died from such cruel diseases,

including my husband.

If Congress is striving to be transparent about asbestos,

please pass legislation to reduce exposure to asbestos in

work-settings, schools, hospitals, and other settings,

increase awareness of the risks of asbestos exposure

including secondary exposure, and significantly increase

federal funding for medical research to fund diagnoses and

treatments for mesothelioma, asbestosis and other asbestos-

related diseases.

The FACT Act drastically erodes the decades of work Bruce

and so many of you have invested in helping those who could

not help themselves. If this bill passes, it will be a

serious step back for Americans who expect their elected

representatives to work on their behalf. Instead of helping

those who suffer from the diseases caused by asbestos, it

will reward those who have perpetuated the diseases.

I thank you for your consideration. I hope you will stand

with me in support of Bruce's memory and in opposition to

this bill.

Sincerely,

Susan Vento.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and for her great leadership as our ranking member on the Appropriations Committee. I also thank her for bringing us together this evening.

Madam Speaker, we have been, all along, 200 House Democratic Members strong, in support of the Republican number that we are voting on today.

Tonight, the unnecessary shutdown America has been enduring for 16 days comes to an end. Thank you, Speaker Boehner, for finally allowing a majority of House Members to reopen government and avoid a default that would have clearly wreaked havoc on our economic credibility and the stability of our country.

It is equally clear that the shutdown has already shaken some pillars of our economic security and growth. It has jeopardized our credit rating and slowed our GDP growth by 0.6 percent. It has eroded consumer and investor confidence in our economy, while taking $24 billion out of our economy.

My colleagues, do you think that your recklessness was worth $24 billion to our economy? This recklessness is a luxury the American people cannot afford.

Tomorrow, we can finally begin what Democrats have been waiting for 7 months to do. Tomorrow, we can go to the negotiating table to debate a budget to create jobs, jobs, jobs--that four-letter word--expand the economy, strengthen the middle class, and reduce the deficit in a meaningful way.

Tomorrow, we must stop governing from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis and start working to find solutions so that we never again see a day when the government has been shut down and the full faith and credit of the United States of America has been called into question.

For that reason, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and not just on its merits, because as we know, this number is too low. Even the chairman of the committee has said it is an unrealistic and ill- conceived number and must be brought to an end. This number, if left in effect, would cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs in the months ahead, in the next year. Hundreds of thousands of jobs. Again, a number that is a luxury this country cannot afford.

So if the Republican number is key to reopening the doors of government and restoring confidence in our economy, Democrats are willing to accept this resolution tonight. As I said, not because of its merits. We do so because a vote ``yes'' on this bill will take us, hopefully, down a path to grow the economy, promote the prosperity of every American who is willing to work hard, play by the rules, and to achieve the American Dream.

So with those qualifications as to what we are voting for tonight, the

number doesn't meet the needs of the American people. The length of time that the debt ceiling is extended is not long enough. Apparently, that is the best we can do. I commend Senator Reid for working in a bipartisan way to send us this bill tonight so we can bring this sadness to an end, and how it has affected so many people.

I do not come here to pin a rose on this legislation. It does not have that respect. But it does have my support as a means to an end.

With that, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an extraordinary progressive leader in San Francisco, Agar Jaicks, who celebrates his 90th birthday today. Jaicks is a central figure in the founding and growth of progressive organizations and neighborhood groups that greatly influenced San Francisco's political life from the 1950s to the present day. He is one of the most beloved and admired figures in our City's great history, and I join my constituents in honoring five decades of his tireless service to the people of San Francisco. Agar Jaicks has been a relentless advocate for social, economic and environmental economic justice. Above all, he is a loyal friend, with a gentle grace and modesty so rarely seen in the world of politics.

Agar Jaicks was born in Chicago in 1923 and raised in the exclusive North Shore suburb of Lake Forest, Illinois, an affluent, upper-class, conservative community. At the age of 20, Jaicks joined the U.S. Marines and fought valiantly in the South Pacific during World War II. After the war ended, he attended George Washington University under the newly implemented Veteran's GI Bill, where he met Diana Roosevelt, the niece of First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who would become his wife. Their first date was a Senate hearing on Capitol Hill, portending a life together in political and public service.

After graduation in 1950, Agar and Diana Jaicks moved to San Francisco to build a life and raise their family. Jaicks' first job in San Francisco was pumping gas for Chevron, but his interest in news and politics led him to a longtime career working for the next forty years as a director for KGO TV.

Agar's political life began with the 1951 campaign of Helen Gahagan Douglas for the United States Senate against Richard Nixon. In 1953, he and his wife joined the San Francisco Young Democrats, a group of progressive activists, where he befriended many future political leaders, including U.S. Representatives Phillip Burton and John Burton, Mayors George Moscone and Willie Brown, all whom he would staunchly support.

Jaicks was elected to the San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee in 1962 where he would serve as Chair and be a stabilizing force for sixteen years. In this position, he ran the United Democratic Campaign that

led voter registration efforts and `get out the vote' mobilizations.

Jaicks' greatest friendships were with San Francisco Supervisor Jack Morrison and U.S. Representative Philip Burton.

Agar and Diana and their Haight Ashbury neighbors, Jack and Jane Morrison and Sue Bierman, stood on the progressive front of important San Francisco battles, from stopping the central freeway that would destroy San Francisco neighborhoods and Golden Gate Park neighborhoods to fighting unrestricted downtown development.

Agar was a devoted husband to his late beloved wife of 64 years, Diana, and remains a loving father to his children, Lisa and Scott, and his grandchildren.

I am proud to call Agar Jaicks my friend and thank him for his leadership, his devoted friendship, and his wise counsel.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I associate myself with his remarks. I thank him for his extraordinary leadership in trying to keep the government open.

Mr. Speaker, this is--what?--the eighth day of the Republican shutdown of government. Small businesses cannot get loans to expand; veterans face uncertainty about their benefits; tuition assistance and the rest. Millions of women and children will go without the nutrition programs that they desperately need.

The shutdown could be over in hours if Republicans would stop being the party of ``no'' and just take ``yes'' for an answer.

So in case you don't know, I have some very good news for you: Democrats have not only been willing to negotiate; Democrats have already stated that they are ready to cooperate.

For example, I have good news. Perhaps you missed the fact that 200 Democratic Members of the House have signed a letter saying that they're willing to accept the Republican number of $986 billion even though, as the gentleman said, we don't like this number--we don't think it's adequate--but the fact is we don't like shutting down the government more.

So, in order to open up government, 200 Members have signed the letter, and five additional Members have made public statements of their willingness to support the Republican number. There's space in this letter for the signatures of maybe just 17 Republicans to sign, but they don't have to sign a letter. Many of them have made public statements, which we respect and honor as their public statements, that they would vote for the Republican number of $986 billion.

The Speaker negotiated with Senator Reid. Senator Reid accepted the Republican House number. The President of the United States accepted the Republican House number. The Democrats in the House accepted the Republican House number. The only people not accepting the Republican House number are the Republicans in the House.

So, when the leadership of the Republican Party--Speaker Boehner, in particular--go around saying it can't pass, that the votes are not there, does that mean he does not trust the word of his own Members who have said that they will vote for the $986 billion? Let's find out. Let's bring the bill to the floor.

That is what we are saying: just bring it to the floor. It has passed the Senate. The President stands ready to sign a number we don't like, but prefer it over shutting down government. We don't like it. We want to open the doors of government, and we are willing to use the key of the Republican number to do so.

Last week, Democrats went a step further. In both public and private discussions, Speaker Boehner said that he doesn't want to go to conference on the budget even though he asked for regular order in March. In early March, Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner said they wanted regular order. That's a message to the President that Congress should work its will. That was good news to us. That means: you pass a bill in the House; you pass a bill in the Senate; you go to conference to reconcile your differences. Perhaps the Speaker didn't think that the Senate would pass a budget, but they did in a matter of days-- practically hours--after the House passed its budget.

But what happened to regular order? It blew out the window. After saying, We want regular order, no longer did the Republicans want to take ``yes'' for an answer. And why? Well, some of this is explained under the Speaker's own statement. Speaker Boehner said, Under rules-- listen to that word ``rules.'' Under rules, if you appoint conferees and after 20 legislative days there is no agreement, the minority has the right to offer motions to instruct, which become politically motivated bombs to throw up on the House floor.

So to be frank with you, we are following what I would describe as regular order. What I would describe as regular order is not ``under rules.'' ``Under rules'' are the rules of the House.

The Speaker--as awesome as the power of the Speaker is, and I understand that--does not have the power to just decide what regular order is, and if you don't want to honor regular order, just say you're not going to honor it, but don't redefine it in order to keep government shut down.

So, in listening to the Speaker's not wanting to shut government down at first and then after it was shut down wanting to open it, the House Democrats took a step unprecedented by any minority party in the Congress of the United States. The House Democratic minority said, We will surrender. We will relinquish our right to motions to instruct--an insider term, actually--

placing conditions on how it would go to the conference table.

So we said to the Speaker, don't worry about that. If that's important to you, if you want to shut down government because you're afraid of a motion to instruct, we'll allay your fears. Fear no more, Mr. Speaker. We will not offer these motions.

As an example, we didn't offer the motion on the first night, which was our right to do, when this bill was introduced as all of you will agree.

So we have said, we have made that claim. This, as I said, is unprecedented, but is a necessary move to end the Tea Party stranglehold on our government and restore basic services on which millions of people rely.

They didn't take ``yes'' for an answer. Two hundred signatures.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit this letter for the Record--200 signatures. It's a beautiful sight, because I want to tell you something: it's about cooperation.

None of us likes this number. All of us want to open up government. That's why we signed it. I want to thank Congressman Tim Bishop, Congressman Patrick and Congressman Keith Ellison for producing this result.

So we've said, yes, we're giving you the votes on something we don't like. We've said we won't do motions to instruct. Please take ``yes'' for an answer.

If you insist on being the party of ``no,'' then don't hide behind something and say who won't negotiate. We cooperated. We gave you what you wanted.

Now here we are today. Republicans are offering yet another motion to keep the government shut down. Some people call it, in the press, the ``supercommittee.'' Others call it the ``Ted Cruz committee.'' Whatever you call it, I'd like to know who writes this stuff. This is so ridiculous a proposal. It's so ridiculous a proposal.

How about we go to the budget table and see how we can reduce the deficit? produce growth for our country?

But all we're going to do is cut our investments in education, investments in making the future better. We're going to make seniors suffer more while we do not touch revenue, and we will not allow any discussion of closing special interest loopholes. That's how they want us to go to the table.

You must be kidding.

As I said, who writes this stuff?

Sometimes there is an expression that people use. Flippantly, they'll say, ``Who do you think you are?'' when you say something. Remember that from your childhood when somebody said, ``Who do you think you are?''

I think we have to take that sentence very seriously, with an emphasis on ``think.'' That would be interesting.

Who do we think we are?

Do we think that we are a party that is responsible, all of us--a Congress that is responsible--that wants to do the right thing for the American people, that knows that we have to come here to cooperate with each other to get something done in a bipartisan way?

To my fellow colleagues on the Republican side--I hope that's allowed, Mr. Speaker. They are Members of the body--do you think you have come here to make sure that people know that you can do this just because you're doing it?

It's just a waste, a total waste of time, and we don't have time to waste. In fact, we could be spending our time in such a more important way--working in a bipartisan way on entrepreneurship, on creating growth for our country, on investing in the education of our people, which, by the way, brings more money to the Treasury than any other initiative you can name.

Early childhood, K-12, higher education, lifetime learning. You want to reduce the deficit?

Invest in education.

You want to increase the deficit?

Cut education.

But let's sit down and talk about that. The path to get there is one that says, say yes to 986. We did, your number. It says accept our offer. We won't offer any instruction to the committee, but don't continue to be the Tea Party of ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Speaker--is that allowed, Mr. Speaker? I hope the Speaker will give us a vote so we can see where this Congress stands on the serious responsibility that we have and that the Republicans will even accept what they are asking us to accept.

This rule should be voted down. This commission is a joke whether you call it the Ted Cruz commission or the super--super in what way? Certainly not super in meeting the needs of the American people.

To recap, A, we are giving you 200 votes for your number. Take ``yes'' for an answer.

B, the Speaker doesn't want any conditions or discussion or anything else on the floor about the budget. We are willing to accept that.

Take ``yes'' for an answer.

I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner: Enough is enough.

Today marks the fifth day that the federal government has

been shutdown. Please consider how deeply unfair this is to

the citizens we represent.

The solution to this crisis is a simple piece of

legislation that funds the government at levels that have

already passed both chambers of Congress.

At this point, to attach defunding or delaying the

Affordable Care Act to legislation needed to reopen the

government is to put our economy at risk in order to advance

a political agenda.

We demand a vote on a clean continuing resolution

immediately so that government functioning can resume and

Americans can move on with their lives.

The games have to stop.

Best Regards,

Tim Bishop; Patrick E. Murphy; Nancy Pelosi, Democratic

Leader; Steny H. Hoyer, Democratic Whip; James E.

Clyburn, Assistant Democratic Leader, Xavier Becerra,

Chair, Democratic Caucus; Joseph Crowley, Vice Chair,

Democratic Caucus; Nita M. Lowey, Ranking Member,

Committee on Appropriations; Chris Van Hollen, Ranking

Member, Committee on the Budget; Robert E. Andrews;

Karen Bass; Joyce Beatty; Ami Bera, Jr.; Sanford

Bishop, Jr.; Earl Blumenauer; Suzanne Bonamici;

Madeleine Z. Bordallo; Robert A. Brady; Bruce L.

Braley; Corrine Brown; Julia Brownley; Cheri Bustos;

G.K. Butterfield; Lois Capps; Tony Cardenas; Andre

Carson.

Joaquin Castro; Judy N. Chu; David N. Cicilline; Yvette

D. Clarke; Wm. Lacy Clay; Emanuel Cleaver; Steve Cohen;

Gerald E. Connolly; John Conyers, Jr., Jim Costa; Joe

Courtney; Henry Cuellar; Elijah E. Cummings; Susan A.

Davis; Danny K. Davis; Peter A. DeFazio; Diana DeGette;

John K. Delaney; Susan DelBene; Thoedore E. Deutch;

John Dingell; Lloyd Doggett; Keith Ellison; Eliot L.

Engel.

William Enyart; Ana Eshoo; Elizabeth Esty; Sam Farr;

Chaka Fattah; Bill Foster; Lois Frankel; Marcia L.

Fudge; Tulsi Gabbard; Pete Gallego; John Garamendi; Joe

Garcia; Alan Grayson; Gene Green; Al Green; Raul

Grijalva; Luis Gutierrez; Janice Hahn; Colleen

Hanabusa; Alcee Hastings; Denny Heck; Brian Higgins;

James A. Himes; Ruben Hinojosa; Rush Holt; Mike Honda;

Steve Horsford.

Jared Huffman; Steve Israel; Sheila Jackson Lee; Hakeem

Jeffries; Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson; Marcy Kaptur; Bill

Keating; Robin Kelly; Joseph P. Kennedy, III; Dan

Kildee; Derek Kilmer; Ann Kirkpatrick; Ann McLane

Kuster; James Langevin; Rick Larsen; John Larson;

Barbara Lee; Sander M. Levin; John Lewis; Daniel

Lipinski; David Loebsack; Alan S. Lowenthal; Michelle

Lujan Grisham; Stephen Lynch; Daniel Maffei; Carolyn B.

Maloney; Sean Patrick Maloney.

Doris O. Matsui; Carolyn McCarthy; Betty McCollum; Jim

McDermott; James P. McGovern; Jerry McNerney; Gregory

Meeks; Grace Meng; Michael H. Michaud; George Miller;

Gwen Moore; James P. Moran; Jerrold Nadler; Grace

Napolitano; Richard Neal; Gloria Negrete McLeod;

Richard Nolan; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Beto O'Rourke;

William L. Owens; Frank Pallone; Bill Pascrell; Ed

Pastor; Donald Payne; Ed Perlmutter; Gary Peters; Pedro

R. Pierluisi.

Mark Pocan; Jared Polis; David Price; Mike Quigley; Nick

J. Rahall; Charles Rangel; Cedric Richmond; C.A. Dutch

Ruppersberger; Bobby L. Rush; Tim Ryan; Linda T.

Sanchez; John P. Sarbanes; Janice Schakowsky; Adam

Schiff; Brad Schneider; Allyson Y. Schwartz; Robert C.

Scott; Jose Serrano; Terri Sewell; Carol Shea-Porter;

Brad Sherman; Albio Sires; Louise Slaughter; Adam

Smith; Jackie Speier; Eric Swalwell; Mark Takano.

Dina Titus; Paul Tonko; Niki Tsongas; Juan Vargas; Marc

Veasey; Filemon Vela; Tim Walz; Debbie Wasserman

Schultz; Maxine Waters; Mel Watt;

Henry Waxman; Peter Welch; Frederica Wilson; John

Yarmuth; Pete Visclosky; Matthew Cartwright; David

Scott; Zoe Lofgren; Nydia M. Velazquez; John Carney;

Ben Ray Lujan; Michael F. Doyle; Donna F. Edwards;

Eddie Bernice Johnson.

Scott H. Peters; Chellie Pingree; Gregorio Kilili Camacho

Sablan; Kurt Schrader; Rosa L. DeLauro; Bennie G.

Thompson; Mike Thompson; John Tierney; Kyrsten Sinema;

Lucille Roybal-Allard; Kathy Castor; Tammy Duckworth;

Collin C. Peterson; Donna M. Christensen; Ron Barber;

Michael E. Capuano; Raul Ruiz; Loretta Sanchez.

Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks of Mr. McDermott. It is a happy day for the American people because today people can begin enrolling in the Affordable Care Act.

Imagine if you were there when Social Security became the law of the land. Imagine if you were there when Medicare did--and two of our colleagues were, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Dingell.

But you are here when the third pillar of economic and health security for the American people is being put into place. It's historic: health care for all Americans, as a right, not just a privilege for the few. We'll talk more about it in the course of the day.

But I come to the floor to really address the issue of the government shutdown, an attempt to hold back the implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act. It didn't happen.

But what is happening is that our colleagues on the Republican side have

refused to accept their own suggestion. So I come, once again, to the floor to propose to the Speaker and our Republican colleagues an explicit offer to help get the votes for their number, 986. I think it's a number that's too low, but I do think with the 6 weeks that are built into it for us to come to the table to discuss a budget that reduces the deficit, that creates jobs, that puts people to work, that we can make progress.

Once again, an explicit offer to help you, Mr. Speaker, get those votes, because this shutdown, while it might be a joy to all of you who are opposed to government, is a luxury our country cannot afford.

Senator Reid, leader of the Senate, has three times, at least three times, accepted your offer of 986. Once again, he will send it back to us so that we can take ``yes'' for an answer to a number that the Republicans have put forth, which the Democrats don't like because we already agreed with the Republicans on a number, a compromise number, 1,058, but are willing, in the interest of the American people, to accept that number as the basis for discussion and go to conference, really go to conference.

Well, I won't even go into my view of what happened last night. I will say, and remind, that 5 years and a couple of weeks ago, we had terrible news brought to us that said that our financial institutions were in meltdown.

House Democrats rallied to support President Bush to stop that meltdown from happening, even when Republicans rejected the proposal of their own President.

Bipartisan cooperation is what the American people expect; and when it is a question of a meltdown of a financial institution, the shutdown of our government, we have no choice but to cooperate with each other.

So in that spirit, I offer a hand of friendship to the Speaker, to our Republican colleagues, accepting their number as the basis for us to go forward to truly go to the table, as was suggested 6 months ago and many, many times in the time since then.

So I hope that, again, in the interest of the American people, the Republicans will take ``yes'' for an answer to their own proposal, and let us sit down and get to work for the American people.

Shutting down government should not be an option that is taken lightly by any of us here. Let's get it open. Let's get to work.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership. I also thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for his leadership and supporting the natural resources of our country.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate did pass the House CR on more than one occasion and sent it back here. Accept what they had on it; they had accepted your number--take ``yes'' for an answer--a number that even the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, our distinguished chairman has said does not adequately support government in its purposes of helping the American people.

But nonetheless, in the spirit of going to a conference, they accepted your number, as do I. I said over and over again to the Speaker and on the floor of the House more than once, including this morning, that we make an explicit proposal to you that we accept your CR number and look forward to

going to conference on that number. So it has been accepted.

You haven't taken ``yes'' for an answer, because why? Because you wanted to undo the Affordable Care Act. And that was the part of your proposal that was unacceptable. And this is exactly what we're doing right now.

This isn't about the parks. They are using the parks as a pawn. This is about defunding the Affordable Care Act on a day when millions of people are logging in to find out how they can enroll. It's really a remarkably historic day, where people can receive the promise of our Founders--of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A healthier life, the liberty to pursue their happiness, and following their passion, whether it's to be in Congress or to be a photographer, an artist, to start their own business, to be self-employed, to change jobs. The entrepreneurial spirit will be unleashed on our country. It's a great day.

So here we are, back on the floor of the House, trying to come in the back window to, once again, go down a path to defund the Affordable Care Act. It's not going to happen.

While we can all sing the praises of our leadership, our chairman, and our ranking member on their support of parks while cutting them off from other services of the Interior Department, that's curious. But it's not about the parks. It's about the Affordable Care Act.

I urge our colleagues to see this for what it is. It's pathetic. It's not responsible. It's beneath the dignity. I keep saying that, but we keep getting further beneath the dignity of what our responsibilities are in this House.

Let us reject this because, you know, they took hostages by shutting down the government. And now they are releasing one hostage at a time. Now it's the parks. Later it's veterans. Our veterans fought for our country, for our children, for our families, for our society. We've already passed an appropriations bill that covers our veterans in that respect. But our veterans need more than what is in the veterans bill. They depend on other services of the United States Government. So if we're honoring our veterans, let us do so in a way that honors what they fought for and honors what they need beyond veterans benefits.

And then they talk about the District of Columbia. I know why you probably don't want to take a vote on the District of Columbia, because I don't know how many people over there will vote to support the District of Columbia. Certainly, certainly it should be treated like any other entity. We would all be in an uproar if our States were treated the way this Congress treats the District of Columbia. But they'll use them as a pawn, too.

This is all subterfuge. This is a waste of time. It's not going anyplace, thank heavens. But what it is is not about what they're talking about--parks, veterans, or the District of Columbia. It's about the Affordable Care Act. One at a time, we'll do our cherry-picking so at the end of the day, we can isolate the Affordable Care Act. We're not going to let that happen. And let's just deal with our colleagues with some level of integrity as to what this is about.

That's why as tempting, as alluring as their camaraderie of opening up government may be, they're throwing us crumbs while they take the pie someplace else. So I urge a ``no'' vote on all three of these suspensions.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his great service to our country and for his leadership on behalf of our veterans. They are precious to us. They make us the home of the brave and the land of the free. We couldn't be who we are, as a Nation, without the service and sacrifice of our veterans and their families.

Mr. Ranking Member, I thank you for your participation in our meetings that we have on a regular basis with the Veterans Service Organizations, where so many of them come and give us their priorities of how we can help them. Whether it was the veterans' budget, the forward funding, or a long list of concurrent receipts, there are so many issues that we talk about there. And now, of course, the backlog and the rest.

And in those meetings, almost every time we meet, either at the beginning or the end, we always practically in a prayerful way quote what we say about our soldiers. The military says, On the battlefield, we leave no soldier behind. And we say, And when they come home, we leave no veteran behind.

The gentleman has said that we have one purpose here today, and that is to unite and support our veterans.

Do we support our veterans when we leave their families behind?

Our veterans are willing to go to battle to fight for our country, for our values, for our families, for their well-being, for our freedoms. And those people are not just veterans. They're fathers, they're mothers, they're grandparents, they're aunts and uncles. They're members of families. They want the best for their children and their grandchildren.

It may surprise you: sadly, some of them receive food stamps. Some of them receive Meals on Wheels. All of them, again, want a better future for our country.

So we're not uniting to support our veterans when we do what we're doing here today, because they would want us to support what they were fighting to defend, the ability of our country to be great. And that greatness springs from the health and well-being of the American people, in addition to our military might.

That's how we would define our strength; and I think, from listening to them, they would too.

I listened with interest to how people identified with their families. Four of my brothers were in the Army. My uncle died at the Battle of the Bulge, and that has always been part of the great pride of our family, that great war of World War II, that my father's brother was killed there.

So this World War II Memorial means a lot to all of us. Even if we didn't know anyone, even if we didn't have someone in the family, it's really important to us. And so we have to think of the ramifications of our actions.

When we shut down government, we can't say, oh, we're not respecting our

veterans because they can't go to the World War II Memorial. That's what shutting down government is, shutting down much of what they fought for, shutting down the tributes that we pay to them.

So let's not leave our veterans behind by leaving their children, their grandchildren, their families and what they need.

Just to go into it, this bill is billions of dollars less than what over 420 Members of this House passed in June.

We're all there for our veterans. There is no question about that, as our distinguished whip, Mr. Hoyer, said. There is no question. Nobody questions the commitment that we all have, the gratitude that we have, the appreciation, the pedestal that we have our veterans on.

But we leave them behind when we leave behind all that they fought for, and we leave them behind when we put a bill on the floor that's billions of dollars less than we all came together to support just a few months ago.

Don't exploit them. Don't use them. We owe them too much.

On the battlefield, we leave no soldier behind; and when they come home, we leave no veteran behind, and all that they know and love.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her leadership on this very important issue. And what is that issue? Do we, as Members of Congress, intend to honor our responsibilities to the American people by making tough choices to keep government open and working for the American people?

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, in the dead of night, the Republican majority had a simple, but clear, choice to make: they could make a choice to accept Democrats saying ``yes'' to them on their budget number to proceed to the negotiating table to come up with a budget for our country, or they could choose in the dead of night to continue, like hounds baying at the Moon, once again--for like the 44th and 45th time--to try to overturn the Affordable Care Act. And what did they choose--and I say this with great apology to hounds because I love dogs--they chose to bay to the Moon. It was a sad thing because so much is at stake.

We should all, as Members of Congress, have confidence in what we believe in and debate full throttle the issues that are important to our country and to our constituents. We shouldn't take hostages because of the weakness of our ideas. We should go confidently to the table of policymaking to debate them, but to say we're going to shut down government unless you overturn the law of the land--that has been upheld by the Supreme Court and validated by the last election--we are going to shut down the government.

Now, the decision that they made the other night--baying night-- they're continuing today, attempting to put on the floor a resolution that has no possibility of becoming the law.

We as Democrats say, you have put forth two really unpleasant proposals; one, to overturn the Affordable Care Act; and the other is hiding the terrible budget bill that they are putting forth, which even their own chairman says does not enable government to function, does not even enable us to do the job that we're here to do for the American people.

Two ``noes'' do not make a ``yes.'' Two ``noes'' make matters worse. Democrats are absolutely, totally opposed and determined that we will not shut government down. We will not be party to shutting government down, and so we're willing to take your budget figure, with the accompanying 6-week opportunity to go to the negotiating table, and develop a bill that will get rid of sequestration and all the harm that that does to our national security and to our investments in the future. Take ``yes'' for an answer.

This debate is about the budget. Keeping government open is about passing a bill, a continuing resolution to do that. Don't be insecure about your own ideas and say the only way we can prevail is if we threaten to shut government down if we don't have our own way--if we don't have our own way, we're going to shut government down. You and that attitude are a luxury this country cannot afford.

So again I say, this is an explicit offer to the Republicans in the Congress to agree to your number in this legislation and take the next weeks ahead to come to the table and negotiate--something we should have done 6 months ago. In March, the Republicans said they wanted regular order. Regular order means you pass a bill in the House and a bill in the Senate, and you go to conference--at least that's what the book says. That's what regular order is. The Republicans wanted regular order. That's what they told the President of the United States in the Oval Office. How would you like to proceed, the President said. We want regular order, said Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell.

The House passed its budget bill. Republicans started saying things like ``no budget, no pay'' to the Senate, the taunt. The Senate had planned to--and did--pass its budget bill. That would be the regular order. Now we go to the table to reconcile our differences.

The minute the Senate passed its bill, the Republicans abandoned any interest in the regular order. Why? Maybe they were afraid that people would see the contrast of what they want to do in their budget compared to the investment in the future, the statement of our national values that our Democratic proposal had under Chairwoman Patty Murray in the Senate and Chris Van Hollen in the House.

Whatever the reason, for 6 months they have not wanted to negotiate, and for 6 months they were saying the President doesn't want to negotiate. But they are the ones who have the responsibility, under the regular order of the House, to come to the budget table to reconcile our differences.

I salute the President for saying that the full faith and credit of the United States is not negotiable. We will not default on the debts that we have all incurred already.

That is over here. So when he says that's not negotiable, that doesn't mean that we won't negotiate on the budget which is in the form of a continuing resolution, a separate issue.

You can only conclude that ``insecure'' because of the poverty of ideas or ``just determined to shut down government,'' maybe because they don't fully understand the consequences of it.

The Republicans have once again come to the floor with a bill which they know will shut down government. 5\1/2\ hours from now--5\1/2\ hours from now--we either bay to the Moon again or we'll make the right decision to take ``yes'' for an answer, we agree to your number for the purpose of going to the negotiating table.

Our number is what we agreed to with you in the Budget Control Act, a

bipartisan agreement--$1.58 trillion versus $986 billion. That's an $80 billion comedown. That number was a comprise to begin with. That wasn't like plush with spending. It was a comprise to begin with. Now we are underfunding government; and that's not good enough for you, to underfund in meeting the needs of the American people. You want to shut down government.

I would hope that all who think this is not a good idea will express themselves on the rule, because the rule does not allow us to have a vote, a clean vote, on your suggestion for a continuing resolution at $986 billion. Let's give the Republicans a vote on their number. Let's give the Republicans a vote on their proposal, and let's do it in a way that is clean and does not place in doubt whether government will be open in the morning to meet the needs of the American people.

I hope that in the previous question enough people will reject what the Republicans are putting forth, and certainly on the rule we can do that. Otherwise, we'll go time and time again--46 times--to vote against undermining the Affordable Care Act. Instead, we could have passed an immigration bill. We could have passed a bill to make sure we had background checks for people who are legally able to purchase guns to make sure that they are. God willing, we could have passed legislation creating jobs, investing in the future for our country.

But all of those things can be the legitimate--not all, but the stuff about the job initiatives and investing in the future are the legitimate debate of priorities that is the budget debate. That is what I hope the Republicans will allow: something they asked for--the regular order; something they asked for--$986 billion in the bill; something I think we all want--keeping government open.

With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his courtesy to allow me, with great enthusiasm, to come to the floor to salute Team America, the Oracle Team USA, which came from behind to win the America's Cup.

As many people may be aware, and some not, over the past year or so the San Francisco Bay Area has been home to the America's Cup race. It's a venerable race. It is usually out to sea, where people in their sailboats could witness what was going on or see it on TV. Because of the vision of Larry Ellison, it was brought to San Francisco Bay. It went from white caps to blue collar, and anyone who could see the bay could see the America's Cup race. The shores were lined with people, and anyone who had a view of the water could see something spectacular happen.

For the past 2 weeks, San Francisco was home to the 34th America's Cup Finals, where Oracle Team USA and Emirates New Zealand raced across the bay for the right to win the oldest trophy in international sport.

The race was swift--boasting AC72s, the fastest catamarans the competition has ever seen. The race was long--lasting over 15 days, as these two incredible teams competed in 19 races. The

race was close--featuring the first ``winner-takes-all'' final race in 30 years.

And yesterday afternoon, the 34th America's Cup finished with the most incredible comeback in history. After trailing Team New Zealand one to eight--Team USA had one, Team New Zealand had eight--Oracle Team USA surged ahead to win an unprecedented eight straight races to once again hold the America's Cup trophy high above their heads.

Skipper Jimmy Spithill, Tactician Sir Ben Ainslie, and the entire Oracle Team USA sailed into the Port of San Francisco as champions, welcomed by the largest and loudest crowd to cheer their entrance into history--or any team in history.

There could be no better backdrop, in my view--or in the view of anyone who saw it--to such a momentous American moment when Team USA in San Francisco Bay crossed over to victory with the backdrop of the hugest American flag I have ever seen.

This all was a vision of Oracle Team Sponsor Larry Ellison, who was on the water with his crew joining in the celebration of his team's second victory in America's Cup. Larry Ellison's vision democratized the Cup--as I said, from white caps to blue collar--by bringing the race so close to the shoreline that everyone who could view San Francisco Bay could view the excitement of America's Cup.

That beautiful sight was made possible by the extraordinary leadership of San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, Mark Buell, who led a private sector initiative, Kyri McClellan of the America's Cup Organizing Committee, and Daley Dunham with the Port of San Francisco.

Thank you to the Coast Guard, the National Park Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers for helping make this race a spectacular sight to see. With the help of these leaders and the local San Francisco maritime unions, the world witnessed one of the greatest moments in sports history on the beautiful bay.

The America's Cup is the oldest and most prestigious trophy in yachting. Team USA won the very first race in 1851 and had successfully defended the Cup for the next 132 years, until 1983. Exactly 30 years later, the Cup returned home where it belongs--in the hands of American sailors who defied the odds, were so courageous, were so disciplined, who were so focused, who had such a strategic plan to give our country--USA, USA, USA--a victory we will never forget.

Thank you, Oracle Team USA, for putting your hearts, your souls, your everything, your all into the 34th America's Cup. You have earned your place in history.

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor in many ways: as a mother, as a mother concerned about the children of America, as a grandmother concerned about all of America's children, but as a mother who steps into this Chamber to say, ``This place is a mess.''

Let's get our House in order. We are legislators. We have come here to do a job for the American people, and that job means we have to make the government run for the good of the people. We are not here to expand government, but we're not here to eliminate government. If the idea is to limit government, let's work together to do that; but what is brought to the floor today is, without a doubt, a measure designed to shut down government. It could have no other intent. Its purpose is clear. If our colleagues on the Republican side deny that, then they have no idea of the gravity of the situation or--to quote ``The Music Man''--of the trouble that is contained in this resolution today.

It is a wolf in wolf's clothing. The underlying bill to shut down government--the CR--is reason enough to object to it because that bill will cost at least a million jobs in the course of the next year. It will cost a million jobs. It will not only do that; it will cut our investments in the future in education and in biomedical research.

The National Institutes of Health has the Biblical power to cure. Where there

is scientific opportunity, we have a moral obligation to meet that scientific opportunity with resources and to respect the talent, the intellect--the God-given intellect--of the science to cure. And what do we do in this bill? We say, ``No''--we cut that--doing serious damage to science, to health and, not only that, to our competitiveness as a Nation. It's a vote that guts those investments.

Not only that, if the underlying bill were not bad enough--if there were not reason enough to say, ``No. Are you kidding? No''--then they cloak it in wolf's clothing, and say, in their view, that they're going to defund the Affordable Care Act. Do you know what that's about? That's simply about putting their friends, the insurance companies, back in charge of medical decisions for your families--but it goes farther than that.

If that were not bad enough, it slashes the strongly bipartisan Children's Health Insurance Program by 70 percent, effectively eliminating an initiative that provides much-needed health care to millions of low-income children. I will remind my colleagues that that bill passed the United States Senate in a bipartisan way with a veto- proof majority, but that's not good enough for you. You've got to slash it by 70 percent to harm those children, once again, this week.

It wreaks havoc on the health care for our seniors by disrupting provider payments for Medicare and Medicaid. Either you don't know what you are doing or this is one of the most intentional acts of brutality that you have cooked up--with stiff competition for that honor. It cuts billions of dollars, again I say, from the National Institutes of Health, delaying important research and denying medical breakthroughs for future generations.

Democrats have a responsible proposal that balances, that reduces the deficit under the leadership of Chris Van Hollen, our ranking member on the Budget Committee. It reduces the deficit in a responsible way; it ends the devastating across-the-board cuts of the sequester; and it makes investments in the future and keeps government open, as opposed to this bill--intended to shut government down. This keeps government open and working for the American people.

I know my colleague Mr. Hoyer has been very vocal on this subject, and he will quote some Republicans in what they have said about this, so don't take it from us. Take it from you, Mr. Chairman, that this bill does not enable us to do the work of government.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this continuing resolution. It is a terrible proposition for our families and our communities and our country. It's always, always time for us to work together to help ensure, not endanger, the economic security and prosperity of the American people. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I thank her also for her leadership on this very important issue to the values of our country. Her service on the Agriculture Committee is indeed a blessing to us all as we fight for our children.

Mr. Lucas, thank you for your leadership of the committee, as well. I know you tried to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor. What happened after that, I won't go into. I also want to salute Collin Peterson, our colleague on the committee. We need a farm bill. We want to have a good farm bill for our farmers, for our ranchers, for food security, for our country. Hopefully, we can get to that place, but not by doing violence to our children.

Mr. Speaker, this body is so magnificent because it is so diverse. We represent districts all over the country. We represent people of different backgrounds all over the country. But one thing, among others, that we certainly have in common is that each one of us have people in our districts who depend on the SNAP program for their nutrition. There isn't one person in this room who could rise up and say: Nobody in my district relies on the nutrition programs that are in the farm bill. Chief among them are children, seniors, veterans and their families. They are the real faces of hunger in America, and their stories are the most compelling reason to reject this dangerous Republican legislation.

In my district in San Francisco, people from all walks of life have relied on the SNAP program to make it through tough and trying times. One young woman I want to highlight is Catlin, now in her twenties, worked hard at a

part-time job to put herself through college. As the recession took its toll on students across the country looking for work, Catlin found that she could not afford to pay rent and purchase food each month. Because she qualified for the emergency food SNAP initiative, she was able to get by, get a promotion, and now works full time.

There's Brian, 50 years old and homeless. Even though he searches constantly for full-time employment, he spends his spare time volunteering at St. Anthony's dining room, helping other people. This is a place that helps other people to find food, shelter, clothes, and compassion in our community. There he gives back what little he has to the community, wholeheartedly serving our seniors, veterans, children, and families who also rely on the generosity of people like Brian to feed themselves and their loved ones.

Like Brian and Catlin, millions of people across America are working hard and giving all they have to lift themselves up and help others get on their feet.

One of my colleagues said something like if you don't work, you shouldn't eat. Something to that effect. I hope I heard it incorrectly. It's really important to note that because of the low minimum wage in our country, a family of four, with both parents working full time and earning the minimum wage, are below the poverty line. They don't even come close to the 130 percent of poverty. They are below the poverty line. So in some respects the SNAP program is subsidizing a low minimum wage in our country, as other support does as well.

I wish that we could respect how hard it is for a family of four, with two people working full time, not making enough money to put food on the table, that we respect them for their struggle and for their concern for their families and not judge them that they don't have food on the table because our country has chosen to pay a sub-living wage to so many people in our country.

The Republican proposal on the floor today slashes the legs on which many of these people stand. Indeed, cutting the investments is a full assault on the health and economic security of millions of families. Consider this: one in five children--it is soon becoming one in four-- struggle with hunger, and nearly half of all SNAP recipients are children. Nearly 4 million Americans over age 60 rely on nutrition assistance. Five thousand Active Duty military families depend on SNAP. Nearly 3 million veterans and their families don't get enough to eat each month, and this bill would jeopardize food assistance for as many as 170,000 veterans.

A couple of weeks ago I was in Houston, Texas, visiting my grandchild, and we were at mass. The sermon was a beautiful one and actually the Gospel was that day, too. Many of our colleagues have quoted the Gospel of Matthew, ``When I was hungry, you gave me to eat,'' and other parts of the Bible. The Gospel that day was talking about how we have a responsibility to each other. In the sermon, the priest said something that I think we should consider as we consider our vote here today. He said:

You just can't come to church and pray on Sunday and go out

and prey on people the rest of the week.

This legislation is preying on people, on children, on veterans, on seniors, on all those who are struggling to do their best in our country.

It is our moral obligation to reject this legislation and to preserve these investments for Americans who need them and other Americans who want them to have it. It is our moral duty to vote down this measure and to work across the aisle in conference on a comprehensive farm bill that ensures food security, supports our farmers and ranchers, and strengthens world communities.

``Community''--that should be the word of the hour. What is our responsibility to community? It certainly isn't to say to kids, We want you to do your best in school, but we're not going to fuel your mind by giving you food to eat. And it certainly isn't to thank our veterans by depriving them or our seniors for all that they have done. Something is very wrong with this picture.

I know one thing for sure: every person who votes for this Republican measure is voting to hurt his or her own constituents because we all represent people who at some time need help.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished San Francisco labor leader, a civil rights activist, and my dear friend, Leroy King, on the occasion of his 90th Birthday.

Committed to the principles of equality and justice for all people, King has been a fierce advocate for San Franciscans through his union, through city and state government, and through church and community groups. Today, I am proud to honor his decades of work to achieve social justice and a better life for working families in San Francisco.

King served as Northern Regional Director of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) for more than 30 years. He became a member of ILWU Local 6 in 1946 and later led a coalition of members to overturn a discriminatory system that elected only whites to union office. He dedicated years to helping create a fully inclusive, integrated workforce.

King's fire and passion for action in support of his beliefs has never dimmed. While in his 80s, he was arrested for staging an act of civil disobedience with hotel and restaurant workers who were fighting to improve working conditions. He also joined San Francisco teachers and education support professionals when they occupied the offices of the City's Board of Education to dramatize the unmet needs of students.

King was instrumental in the union's creation of the St. Francis Square Cooperative Housing development, which opened in 1963 in the Fillmore District and was a national model for creating racially- integrated housing for working families. King and his family moved into St. Francis Square when it opened, and he continues to live there today.

A staunch supporter of civil rights champion Cesar Chavez, King is often credited for bringing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to the Bay area for a civil rights rally in 1967. In 2009, the National Education Association honored King with the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Award for promoting peace and advancing social and economic justice by embodying King's inclusive leadership and nonviolent philosophy.

As a long-time civic and public affairs leader, Mr. King served on the San Francisco Redevelopment Commission for over 30 years. As Commissioner, he fought to preserve the African-American and Japanese- American heritage of the Fillmore District.

With great pride, I designated him as my appointee to California's Electoral College. On December 15, 2008, he cast my official vote for Barack Obama as the first African American President of the United States.

From his courageous service in World War II to his extraordinary dedication to the City of San Francisco and the State of California, Leroy King is peerless leader will always be a strong and unwavering voice for the voiceless.

Mr. Speaker, on August 6th San Francisco lost a visionary artist, educator, community activist, civic leader and beloved friend. Ruth Asawa was an internationally recognized sculptor who will be long remembered for her public works of art, her extraordinary wire sculptures, and her commitment to the people of San Francisco, especially our children. Her memory will embolden future generations to devote their passions to the freedom of self-expression and public betterment.

The story of Ruth Asawa is the story of America, of great patriotism and ethnic pride, as reflected in her life and work. She earned the recognition she deserved, conquering discrimination as a female in a male-dominated discipline, and during and after World War II when our government incarcerated Ruth, then 16 years old, her family, and about 110,000 fellow Japanese Americans in internment camps throughout the United States.

Ruth and her family were first sent to Santa Anita Race Track in Los Angeles, California, housed in horse stables for six months before being transferred to a barbed wire enclosed camp in Rohwer, Arkansas. After the war, lingering ill will against Japanese Americans prevented her from securing a teaching position and completing her degree. She decided to study art at Black Mountain College in North Carolina where she studied with painter Josef Albers, dancer Merce Cunningham and architect/inventor Buckminster Fuller and met her husband Albert Lanier. They decided to live in San Francisco because of its vibrant arts community and respect for diversity as the Laniers were an interracial couple. In Noe Valley, one of many neighborhoods in San Francisco, they raised their six children.

As a trustee of the San Francisco Fine Arts Museums, Ruth influenced the evolution of the new de Young museum and was a strong supporter of the museum's innovative architecture. More than 150 of her works are preserved at the de Young where her gorgeous hanging wire sculptures are permanently displayed.

Ruth's public works include such recognizable San Francisco landmarks as the Andrea Mermaid Fountain at Ghirardelli Square, the Hyatt on Union Square Fountain, the Buchanan Mall Fountains in Japan town, the Aurora Fountain at Bayside Plaza and the Garden of Remembrance at San Francisco State. Other great works in the San Francisco Bay Area include the Japanese American Internment Memorial in front of the Federal Building in San Jose, California.

Ruth will be forever remembered for her dedication to our children and her loving work to make our schools and City more joyful learning environments. Her legacy will live on in the young artists who attend Ruth Asawa School of the Arts which she founded. She also founded the Alvarado Arts Workshop which established the artist-in-residence model of public arts education. It is a national model. Ruth helped organize the Music, Dance, Drama and Science (MADDS) Festival, now an annual city-wide youth event sponsored by schools, civic leaders, neighborhood groups, and museums.

It was a great honor for me to be asked to say a few words at the celebration of Ruth's life on August 27th in San Francisco's beautiful Golden Gate Park. I spoke about our City's great love for Ruth and her tremendous impact on the Bay Area, and I learned about talents beyond Ruth's art, her love of gardening and sharing her bounty, most particularly her famous ginger garlic salad dressing, with her friends and loved ones. To Ruth's children Xavier, Aiko, Hudson, Addie and Paul, her ten grandchildren, and four great grandchildren I extend my deepest sympathy. I hope it is a comfort to them that Ruth will forever be remembered, not only for her work that so lovingly adorns our City, but also for her activism and leadership that showed us how to mentor generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for his leadership of importance to the American people, the creation of jobs, growing our economy and, in the case of what is on the floor today, the 40th attempt--the 40th attempt--to harm the health and financial well-being of the American people.

Forty is a number that is fraught with meaning in the Bible: 40 hours, 40 days, 40 years in the desert, but it's fraught with nothing when it comes to overturning the Affordable Care Act, as they're trying to do for the 40th time today.

When our Republican colleagues vote for this bill, they will vote to put insurance companies back in charge of people's health. When they vote for this bill, they will be voting for an initiative that deprives patients of their rights, of making a preexisting condition a reason for discrimination. That's what a vote for this does.

That's the joy of the Affordable Care Act. No longer will being a woman be a preexisting condition. People with preexisting conditions can no longer be denied coverage. Annual or lifetime limits are eliminated.

Insurance companies must spend their money on insurance, and they must do it in a way that focuses on health care, not on CEO pay, advertising, and the rest. It's an 80-20 ratio. Many people in our country have received some of the money insurance companies have had to refund because they were spending too much on themselves and not enough on policyholders.

So here we are for the 40th time. What is really sad about it is the violence that it does to the health of the American people and to a policy that enables them to have prevention and wellness. It's about the health of America, not just the health care. What's sad about it is that for those 40 times we've lost the opportunity to bring a jobs bill to this floor--a jobs bill that is very needed--a jobs bill that says, Let's make it in America, manufacture in America, build the infrastructure of America, strengthen our communities with education and public safety.

Instead of even passing appropriations bills, the Republicans are on this aimless path of taking us into chaos as we go into August. In September, the moment of truth will be here. The fiscal year will end on September 30. Instead of preparing for that, the Republicans are, once again, on this fools' errand of making matters worse for the

American people, putting insurance companies in charge of people's health, and depriving patients of their rights.

This budget challenge that we have is a very serious one. We shouldn't even be leaving here today because we haven't done the work necessary to prepare us for the end of the fiscal year. Instead, we are wasting the taxpayers' time and money.

I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation. I urge the America people to insist that we get down to the people's business of job creation and to find a budget that will not destroy and question the full faith and credit of the United States of America; to find a budget that will create jobs, grow the economy, and reduce the deficit.

If we shut down government, as some on the Republican side have said, unless we repeal the Affordable Care Act, what does that mean to you? It means to you that the success of your 401(k) is in jeopardy. It means if you have mortgage interest payments, you will probably pay more. Your credit card bills will probably go up because of the increase in interest.

It's just not right for what it does. It does not understand the economic challenges faced by America's families who want jobs, want to educate their children, want to maintain their homes, and want to have secure pensions for the future. It's just silliness, and it does not deserve even the time we're taking on the floor, much less rise to the dignity of deserving a vote by Members of Congress.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for the kind words that they have said about our former colleague, Congresswoman Lindy Boggs, and I associate myself with their remarks.

I will only add that bipartisanship was the nature of how Lindy Boggs led and served in this body. When we would have our heated discussions on the floor, she would call us back and say, ``Darlin', Hale used to always say, `Don't fight every fight as if it's your last fight.''' We are all friends. We are a resource to each other to do good things for our country. No wonder a room is named for her, a room that has shared bipartisan enjoyment and participation, in which we have come together as Democrats and Republicans to bring about solutions.

It was referenced that we had a bipartisan tribute to her on her birthday, March 13. I think you would find some joy in the fact that, as a devout Catholic, on her birthday, which was when we planned to have the tribute, it was the day that white smoke went up in the chimney in Rome. So, for her birthday, we could also celebrate a new Pope, Pope Francis. What better gift for her than to enjoy that on her birthday?

All of us are mourning and will be in New Orleans for her service tomorrow. Our prayers go to her family. I hope it's a comfort to them to know that so many people loved Lindy Boggs and share their grief and are praying for them at this time.