Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay final tribute to a prominent San Francisco businessman, philanthropist, and civic leader: Walter Newman. San Francisco has been blessed by Walter's life, vision, leadership, and generosity. His legacy will leave an everlasting impact on our city.

Walter Newman was a third generation Californian, a dedicated patriot, and a proud American. He served our country as an Army infantry captain during World War II. He earned a Purple Heart for wounds sustained while leading his troops into Normandy. He earned the gratitude and accolades of the people of France, the recipient of that country's highest civilian honor, the Chevalier of the National Order of the Legion of Honor.

Mr. Newman continued his service in our beloved hometown of San Francisco. As head of the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Commission, he helped lead the effort to develop major civic projects ranging from the Transamerica Pyramid to Mission Bay. As president of the San Francisco Fine Arts Museum, he was instrumental in bringing King Tut artifacts to San Francisco as one of our first great art exhibitions.

He played a vital role in the establishment of University High School in San Francisco. He was a member of the Board of Governors of the University of California, San Francisco; a member of the UCSF Conflict of Interest Committee; and a member of the board of the San Francisco General Hospital Foundation.

In a true reflection of his dedication to his fellow veterans, he served on the Board of Directors of NCIRE--The Veterans Health Research Institute, a national leader in advancing veterans' health research based in San Francisco. He helped establish a veterans' resource center at the City College of San Francisco. It is a testament to Mr. Newman's longstanding dedication to San Francisco and our veterans that UCSF will soon have a 42,000-square-foot Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Mission Bay.

Walter will be remembered for his positive attitude and compassion, for his unyielding commitment to the education of our children and the health of our people, for his unending devotion to the well-being of our veterans.

He will be remembered for his exemplary will and exceptional values-- for the way he inspired others to action, even in moments of his own grief. Indeed, when his son Bob tragically passed away from a malignant brain tumor, Walter responded in characteristic fashion. At a time when so many others would, understandably, turn inward with grief, he honored his son's memory by co-founding and becoming President of the National Brain Tumor Foundation--an organization that assists thousands of people suffering from brain cancer.

A cherished civic leader. A proud San Franciscan. A champion for our city, our state, and our country. This is how we will all remember Walter Newman.

Yet, as devoted as he was to civic and cultural causes in San Francisco, he was above all devoted to his beloved wife Ellen, his sons Walter Jr. and John, and brother-in-law Jerry. I hope it is a comfort to his family and loved ones that so many join them in mourning his passing.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor very pleased that our Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner, has brought the discussion of our fiscal challenges to this floor. Indeed, it is long overdue. We have been calling upon the Speaker to bring forth a middle-income tax cut now for a very long time--in fact, since last summer when it passed the United States Senate. The President stands ready and poised with his pen to sign it.

Democrats in the House have a discharge petition to bring that bill to the floor. What stands in the way is an act on the part of the Republican majority to bring a middle-income tax cut to the floor of the House, which across the country has almost universal support and which I think in this body, given the right to vote for it, would have overwhelming support.

Up until now, everybody in the country--in fact, in the world--has been talking about what's going to happen--those who pay attention to such matters--what's going to happen in the budget debate in the Congress and with the President. At last, that subject comes to the floor.

What I would do to respond to what the Speaker has said, though, is to set the record straight. The fact is that the President has, and Democrats agree with him, agreed to around $1.6 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act and other acts of Congress in this particular Congress, $1.6 trillion in cuts. Where are the cuts? They're in bills that you, Mr. Speaker, have voted for.

Secondly, on the issue of the entitlements with the Affordable Care Act and with legislation, suggestions and provisions in the President's budget, it amounts to over $1 trillion in savings in Medicare, over $1 trillion in savings which have been redirected to prolonging the life of Medicare, making it stronger for nearly a decade while increasing benefits for our seniors and those who depend on Medicare--not reducing but increasing benefits. There's been a massive misrepresentation about what that is, so I want to set the record straight. So in terms of spending cuts, we are on the record having voted for about $1.6 trillion.

In terms of entitlement reform, there is over $1 trillion already and more savings to be gained in further discussions on the subject by a strong down payment.

What is missing are two elements that the President has put forth in his budget: growth, investments in infrastructure--yes, the President has called for investments in infrastructure to build the infrastructure of America and to create jobs to grow our economy; and, where are the revenues? Where are the revenues? Regardless of the cuts or the changes in entitlements, more is demanded in terms of what seniors would have to pay into Medicare and at what age that would happen, while the Republicans refuse to touch one hair on the head of the wealthiest people in our country.

The public overwhelmingly, 2-1, supports the President's initiative for extending the middle-income tax cuts whereby 100 percent--100 percent--of U.S. taxpayers get a tax cut. Above 250--the people making more than $250,000 a year would be asked to pay a little more to contribute to the fiscal soundness of our country, to pay our bills, the defense of our country, the support of our troops, the pillars of security for our seniors, the education of our children and the safety of our neighborhoods.

This is just asking them to pay a little bit more while they continue to get the same tax cut that everyone does. So it is 100 percent of the American people get a tax cut, the upper 2 percent are asked to pay a little bit more.

So I thank the Speaker for finally at least uttering the words on the floor of the House about what the decisions are that need to be made. Again, we have committed to the cuts, we have acted upon the entitlements, the President has more in his budget, all of this would be a down payment for as we go forward into the next session of Congress to talk about tax simplification and fairness, how we can perhaps lower rates while plugging up loopholes and having a Tax Code that encourages growth in our economy.

But that is a longer discussion as we address the issue of how we strengthen our entitlements not by diminishing benefits but by getting more for what we are spending. So if it's Social Security, any changes in Social Security should be left to strengthen Social Security. If it's Medicare, any changes should be there to strengthen Medicare, not to underwrite and subsidize tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country.

So, again, I welcome the Speaker's statement that he wants to solve the problem. The President has put forth his budget, which has his initiative in it. He has said that he's willing to make some changes. But it's really important that any changes not hurt the middle class. It comes right down to this. Again, I've said, it's not about the price of the high-end tax cut, it's about the money that it generates. You can find the money another way at the high end. Let's see what that discussion is. But it is not to burden the middle income in order to have bigger tax cuts at the high end.

Those high-end tax cuts only increase the deficit. They have not created jobs. It's simply unfair, and it doesn't work. So hopefully the clock is ticking, we're getting closer to the holidays, and that means closer to the end of the year, which is fraught with meaning in terms of time and the rest of this. I don't think there's any reason for us not to come to the table to make an agreement to give confidence to consumers in this holiday season and to the markets at their end of year decisions so that we will have the growth--the growth, the jobs that produce revenue. That approach is the way to create jobs to reduce the deficit.

We want to fix the deficit, grow the economy, and do so in a way that makes responsible cuts and strong investments for our seniors and the pillars of economic security for them and for their family. It is not a time to inject even more uncertainty into the lives of the American people and the economy of our country--and what that means globally. It simply isn't the time. Many of these ideas are bad at any time, but they're particularly harmful at this time.

So, again, I thank the Speaker for bringing the issue finally to the floor

of the House of Representatives. I look forward to how we can move quickly because time is of the essence, and every day that we can remove all doubt about the full faith and credit of the United States of America, our investments in the future, our creation of jobs and our respect and support for the economic and health security of our seniors, every day we can do that, but more quickly, is a good day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 2012 World Series Champions, the San Francisco Giants. On October 28, 2012, the Giants defeated the Detroit Tigers by a score of four to three in game four to sweep the World Series, winning the franchise's second championship since the team moved to San Francisco from New York in 1958. By their tremendous victory, our Giants once again made us the proudest city in baseball.

This year, the Giants showed tenacity, heart, and teamwork on their path to victory. They unleashed their arsenal of reliable starting pitching, stellar relief pitching, heroic defense, and powerful hitting to outlast their rivals in the fiercely contested National League Western Division. Their performance was a portrait of grit and good sportsmanship from the first pitch through the last, and we celebrate them for their excellence on and off the field.

There is no one superstar on the Giants' roster; they are a band of brothers who ``play for the name on the front of their jerseys, not the name on the back.'' Congratulations to all 25 players on the playoff roster, including World Series Most Valuable Player Pablo Sandoval, who demonstrated the true meaning of ``Panda Power'' to the rest of the country, and National League Most Valuable Player Buster Posey, as well as: Jeremy Affeldt, Madison Bumgarner, Matt Cain, Santiago Casilla, Tim Lincecum, Javier Lopez, Guillermo Mota, George Kontos, Sergio Romo, Barry Zito, Ryan Vogelsong, Marco Scutaro, Brandon Crawford, Gregor Blanco, Aubrey Huff, Brandon Belt, Hunter Pence, Angel Pagan, Hector Sanchez, Jose Mijares, Joaquin Arias, Ryan Theriot, and Xavier Nady.

This year's extraordinary win required a full team effort, from the field to the front office. While the players poured their hearts out on the diamond, the thanks and gratitude of all Giants fans also goes to the team's Chief Executive Officer Larry Baer, General Manager Brian Sabean, and Manager Bruce Bochy. Through their commitment, strategy, guidance, and dedication, the 2012 San Francisco Giants emerged as the 2012 World Series champions.

The San Francisco community united in support behind their team and an estimated one million fans turned out to celebrate their victory in a parade full of past and present San Francisco baseball legends. Congratulations to the passionate and devoted Giants fans in northern California, across the country, and around the world for their unrelenting support of the Giants.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, in the course of the election the President made it very clear that he was supporting the extension of the middle income tax cut and everyone, 100 percent of the American people, would benefit from it--100 percent of taxpayers, small businesses, wage earners, and the rest.

Republicans are saying that rather than passing that, they want to hold it hostage to giving an additional tax cut to people making over $250,000 a year. That's not negotiating; that's hostage-taking.

So today on the floor of the House, the Democrats have proposed a discharge petition which, if it receives 218 signatures, that's only a couple dozen Republicans joining the Democrats, it would automatically come to the floor and I predict would receive overwhelming support of the House of Representatives.

The American people want us to work together. We are in agreement on this subject. Why--why, my Republican colleagues--can we not vote on something where we have agreement, where we have fairness that will work to create jobs, to reduce the deficit and will again have fairness.

This is the heart of the matter that is holding us here. As the public watches--what is this about--this is about the $250,000 line that the President said in the campaign that he would honor and that this legislation today brings to bear.

I urge my colleagues, out of 435 Members of the House, we only need a couple dozen Republicans to sign the discharge petition. Each one of them holds the key to a $2,000 tax cut for the middle class.

Either sign the petition, urge the Speaker to bring the bill to the floor, or explain to your constituents why you do not want them to have this $2,000 tax break for 100 percent of the American people. Please sign the discharge petition. Let's get this done this week. We could bring this bill up under unanimous consent. The message would be clear to the American people: we heard you in the campaign. Be fair, do something that works, work together. This gives us that opportunity.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank Speaker Boehner for his leadership and cooperation in bringing this legislation to the floor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Tip O'Neill said the Speaker of the House was Millie, his wife. I had the privilege of serving in the office that Tip O'Neill had when he was Speaker of the House and having in my possession the gavel that was given to Speaker O'Neill when he became the leader--not yet the Speaker. It's Waterford, Mr. Speaker, so you could only use it one time, and perhaps he would use it today. But you made this possible. All of us who admire and love Tip O'Neill are grateful to you for that. So I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and for your very fine words.

Two weeks ago, Members of Congress joined members of the O'Neill family and many others to plant a tree in honor of the life of Speaker Tip O'Neill. Today we honor Tip again by passing a resolution to inscribe his name on a Federal building, a lasting tribute to his service and leadership to the State of Massachusetts, to the House of Representatives, and his leadership for all Americans.

I thank again Speaker Boehner for leading this bipartisan effort to remember the great Tip O'Neill together on the floor of the House, where Tip once wielded the Speaker's gavel with courage, dignity, and grace. And I thank you, Mr. Capuano, for joining the committee to bring this to the floor of the House. You serve in the same district that Tip O'Neill did. What an honor. I serve in the office that he had. What an honor.

It is fitting that the Tip O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building will stand alongside the office building named for Tip's dear friend, colleague, and partner in public service, former President and House Minority Leader, Gerald Ford. As the Speaker indicated, they will be neighbors. Indeed, reflecting on their long partnership, President Ford once said:

Tip O'Neill is an outstanding political leader and patriot

who always carried the torch for the Congress and the

American people.

Carrying the torch. The statement captured the essence of Tip's success: his extraordinary leadership; his unflinching patriotism; his belief in the common good; his devotion to the unending fight to ``form a more perfect union.'' Yes, Mr. President Ford, Tip carried this torch for all who believed that the purpose of politics is to improve the lives of others.

Tip carried the torch for the underdog, for the person on the street, for the family struggling to pay the bills. He carried the torch of opportunity and equality into every budget negotiation, every legislative battle, every bipartisan agreement. Tip was the personal manifestation of the American Dream, and he carried the torch for anyone else who strived to achieve it.

For Tip, standing on principle was not about political gain; it was about fighting for the voiceless and for the aspirations of the middle class.

For Tip, the effort to reform and save Social Security was not about figures on a page; it was about seniors fighting to make ends meet. That's why we were so proud of what he did with President Reagan to prolong the life of Social Security.

For Tip, floor debates were not about abstract numbers; they were about people and the consequences of a policy to their lives.

Those were the values that enabled Tip O'Neill to leave his giant footprint on the course of American history. This is the spirit that made him a legend, that allowed him to help the middle class thrive, that ensured his actions would strengthen the character of our country, in his time and for future generations.

By his leadership and his patriotism, Tip O'Neill was a proud champion of his district, his State, and our Nation. With his gavel in hand, he was a giant of the Congress. With his record of progress, he was a bona fide American hero. By adding his name to a Federal building in sight of the Capitol he loved, we all carry the torch of the legacy of Tip O'Neill.

I hope that we have not the close vote that would have been fun maybe at that time, but a unanimous vote that shows that we share Tip's values and take pride in his leadership as he stands as a neighbor to President Gerald Ford.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the service and sacrifice of MSG Marvin Tasby on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Air Force. For the last 4 years, Master Sergeant Tasby has served the Air Force and our Nation as a legislative liaison here in Congress.

Master Sergeant Tasby is affectionately known to many of us in Congress as ``Taz.'' For 26 years, the United States Air Force, and indeed the entire Nation, has benefitted from Taz's talents, experience, and devotion.

As we honor Taz, we also honor all of those who wear our Nation's uniform.

When our airmen and airwomen serve, their families serve as well. Today in paying tribute to Master Sergeant Tasby we also express our gratitude to his wife Katrina, his sons Jordan and Justin, and his mother Jessie.

After enlisting in the Air Force in 1986 in Shreveport, Louisiana, Taz served across the United States and around the world. He has worked in the Office of the Air Force Reserve and served as a member of the 93rd Bomb Squadron and the 140th Fighter Wing.

A key part of Taz's latest posting, as a legislative liaison, has been escorting Members of Congress around the world. Indeed, Taz has served as part of 50 fact-finding missions to 62 countries around the globe. In doing so, he has earned the respect of Members and staff. He is known around the world by State Department officials and foreign nationals.

Personally, I've been proud to have Taz by my side in 16 countries-- from Afghanistan to the United Kingdom, many of them more than once. We've been together in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and North America. We've gone into war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq and we've travelled to meet with the heads of parliaments from around the world.

Taz spends countless hours planning every detail of a trip and ensuring logistics are executed perfectly. I've seen firsthand Taz's resourcefulness, attention to detail, and overall commitment to excellence.

Taz has been rightly honored with a number of medals throughout his 26 year career. These include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Air Force Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Kosovo Campaign Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.

The Air Force song is a tribute to those, as it says, ``who love the vastness of the sky.'' When we sing that song, four times we proclaim, ``Nothing will stop the Air Force!''

Those words are true about the Air Force because of our airmen and airwomen. They are true because of people like MSG Marvin Tasby.

Thank you very much, Mr. Hoyer. I appreciate your yielding and your leadership in bringing us together on the floor of the House. We are after-hours, and it is only 12:40, but it's after- hours on a Friday afternoon. That is in the context that we left here on August 3. We're not due back until November 14, and yet we have had only 8 legislative days of work in that period of time.

I thank you for calling that dereliction of duty to the attention of the American people because we have work to do. It's not as if our work is finished. As you have indicated, there is critical legislation that is expiring that has passed even in the Senate; yet Republicans have blocked the vote in the House, whether it's middle income tax relief, postal reform, violence against women, the farm bill and then, of course, initiatives proposed by President Obama to create jobs for our economy.

I was so pleased to hear what our colleague, Congresswoman Schwartz, had to say about Medicare, because our names are all on the ballot in this year's election. But what is really at stake is Medicare. Medicare, Medicare, Medicare. As you said, Mr. Hoyer, they offered nothing except to raise costs to seniors for getting less as they phase out Medicare.

I wanted to talk about another subject because it's a larger issue as I hear this question bandied about. You hear people say, Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? The Republicans have the nerve to pose that question that when you look back to 4 years ago, this very week, Mr. Speaker, you would know that we are indeed fundamentally and unquestionably better off as a country today. This week, 4 years ago, September 18 to be exact, but this week, there was a meeting in my office when I was Speaker of the Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and of the Senate gathered together to hear a report from the administration that was very alarming.

Mind you, September 18, 2008, the Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, described for us a financial system in imminent danger of total collapse. Chairman Bernanke at that same meeting, the chairman of the Fed, told us if we did not act immediately, we would not have an economy by Monday. This was a Thursday evening. You remember, Mr. Hoyer. You were there. If we do not act immediately, we will not have an economy by Monday. How on Earth can people who perpetrated that situation on our country have the nerve to turn around and ask that question? At the end of the meeting, we all went out in a bipartisan way and spoke to the press. I said at the time, Time is of the essence and that Congress would act. I was trying to lift confidence in our financial situation.

Despite there being a Presidential election 7 weeks away at that time, it was no time for partisanship. The crisis demanded that Democrats and Republicans work with President Bush to rescue our economy from depression or, as Chairman Bernanke said, from our not having an economy 4 days later.

In the days ahead, our country confronted the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The costs were staggering: more than $8 trillion lost in household wealth, more than 8 million jobs lost, and more than 4 million families losing their homes to foreclosure. Nonetheless, the Democrats voted with President Bush to restore confidence in our markets, and the Republicans even walked away from their own President.

In the 2 years after that September 18 meeting, we continued to take actions to reduce spending and to address what was inevitable from the policies of the 8 years previous to the November 2008 election. When we took the majority and with President Obama in office, we took action to reduce spending, create jobs, keep people in their homes, and passed Dodd-Frank, the toughest Wall Street reforms in generations. With it-- the most historic for the first time--protections for American consumers in that bill. All of it was fought vigorously against by the Republicans.

Now we have President Obama, and we have a Republican Congress. Under President Obama's leadership, we have added private sector jobs for 30 straight months, compared to losing 700,000 jobs a month as he entered office; the auto industry, which was facing extinction, and the loss of over 1 million jobs in that industry is again competitive and hiring and thriving; the Dow Jones average, which is one reflection of the security of tens of millions of American investors and pension funds, has already doubled; and housing prices are slowly rising again. We need much more progress there. Imagine, from that time the Dow Jones has doubled.

We still have work to do to continue the American recovery. If the Republicans had cooperated at all with President Obama in the last 2 years, we would be much farther down the road to recovery. We cooperated with President Bush; but they would not offer an ounce of cooperation to President Obama, and our economy has paid the price. We have reaped the benefits of some of what happened in the 2 years when we were in the majority and President Obama was in the first 2 years of his term. But so much more could have been done with some cooperation from the Republicans.

We get back to the question: Are we better off this week in September than we were this week 4 years ago? You be the judge.

I know America's families are hurting. We want to do more to create jobs, et cetera, and we have to have bipartisan cooperation to do that. The Republicans have resisted that. From that standpoint, yes, we can do better.

But from the standpoint of this country when there was a financial crisis, we were on the verge of a total collapse where the chairman of the Fed told us that if we did not act immediately, we wouldn't have an economy by Monday. Yes, we are fundamentally as a country better off and, therefore, the prospects for the future are better for all of America's families, and that's what we are here to work on, the future.

Too bad our Republican colleagues have cut and run from town, but we stand ready to welcome them back to work in a bipartisan way to make concessions to get the job done for the American people.

I thank you, Mr. Hoyer, for giving us all the opportunity to express our views on the subject today.

As we come to the floor this afternoon to talk about this sequester issue, the clock is ticking. Every moment we delay in dealing with the budget issue is a moment of time that does not increase confidence in our economy, that does not bring more certainty to our economic situation, and that does not reduce the deficit.

I heard the previous speaker say that this legislation that is on the floor would end sequestration. It does not. That is one of the major differences between it and the Democratic proposal put forth by Mr. Van Hollen. Unfortunately, afraid of debate on the floor, the Republicans on the Rules Committee did not allow Mr. Van Hollen's proposal to come to the floor today so that we could have a vote on it; but even with that, we can have a debate on it.

The debate is about fairness. It's about balance. It's about living up to our responsibilities. It's about saying, yes, we all have to compromise--there will be cuts; we need revenue; we want growth. That's what Mr. Van Hollen's proposal does. It does, indeed, replace the sequestration. It is a better plan. It actually does end sequestration, as I mentioned, through a mix of cuts and revenues.

The reason we have a problem here is that our Republican colleagues have refused to have one red cent from the wealthiest people in our country contribute to resolving this fiscal crisis, this budget crisis--not one red cent. If they cared as much about defense as they say, 1 year ago they would have agreed to a plan with fairness and balance, where we would have had growth on the table, making decisions about revenue and about cuts to produce growth and not getting into a situation that called for across-the-board cuts in defense and in our domestic budget.

This is really silly. It's really silly. It's not serious. It's a charade, this bill that they have on the floor today. It just keeps making matters worse as the clock keeps ticking. So I urge my colleagues to reject this mirage of a bill that poses as a suggestion and to support, instead, ideas that are being advanced by Mr. Van Hollen. I don't like everything about it. We've cut over $1 trillion. That's how we got through last year--all cuts, no revenue.

You need only see how we differ by just looking at the Ryan-Romney Republican budget. Their blueprint says we're going to end Medicare; we're going to make seniors pay $6,000 more as we end Medicare; and we're going to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country. That's not fair and that's not balanced, but that is what would happen if the Republican bill were to become law. It would enact the Ryan bill. So I urge my colleagues to think very seriously about this, because people sent us here to find solutions. We must resolve this.

When the Speaker of the House says, I'm not confident we can do this, we are confident we can do anything we set our minds to, and we certainly have to be confident that we can honor our responsibilities to the American people. We all have to go to the table and be willing to yield, willing to compromise. We had to do it with President Bush, Senior, and with President Bush on his recovery package for our country. Democrats cooperated with both of those Presidents when we were in the majority.

Why is it that the Republicans in the House see no reason to compromise even at the risk of the full faith and credit of the United States of America? even at the expense of the health of our economy? even at the expense of jobs for the American people?

Vote ``no'' on this mirage. Support what Mr. Van Hollen is putting forth. Let's get moving because the clock is ticking.

Mr. Speaker, this Republican majority is prepared to adjourn the House of Representatives to leave for the August district work period without accomplishing what the American people have sent us here to do. They want us to create jobs. They want us to reduce the deficit, and they want us to give a middle-income tax cut, which the President has suggested and the American people overwhelmingly support.

Instead, we have no jobs agenda, no tax cuts for the middle class, no farm bill, no Violence Against Women Act, no cybersecurity strategy, no balanced, bipartisan plan to prevent the sequester.

The only thing the Republicans have done is to increase the uncertainty that threatens another debt crisis and undermines our economic growth. Now they want to head out of town to campaign, when Congress should stay in session to address the most pressing challenges facing our Nation: job creation, growth in our economy, and strengthening the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats want us to get our job done. When we go home to meet with our constituents, we want to say what we have accomplished and what results we can bring that have been worked out in a fair, bipartisan, balanced way.

In spite of this, the Republican obstruction at every turn is preventing that.

Let's get to work. Let's do the job our constituents elected us to do: to create jobs with them and to relieve the uncertainty in their lives.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also thank him for his legislation on the floor today, to strengthen the backbone of our democracy, the great American middle class.

Today we can do just that by passing President Obama's middle-income tax cut, which is on the floor today as the Levin substitute. It has already passed the Senate and could be signed into law by the President before the weekend.

We have an opportunity. We have an opportunity to give a tax cut to 100 percent of the American people. We have an opportunity to relieve some of the uncertainty that exists in our economy as to how we are going to pay the bills and how America's working families are going to pay the bills.

We have an opportunity for fairness, which is an all-American value, for fairness for our families, for our businesses, and for our budget. We must not--as some people always accuse Congress of doing--miss an opportunity.

We have to take advantage of the opportunity that is here today. The bill provides for fairness for the middle class and certainty, as I mentioned.

The Republican alternative says not only do we want to give 100 percent of the American people a tax cut; we want to give a bigger and better tax cut to people making over $250,000 a year ,2 percent of the American people. In order to do that, we greatly increase the deficit which would incur borrowing from other countries, including China. And to top it all off, in order to give a tax cut to the wealthiest people in our country, we have to increase taxes for the middle class in order to pay for that. If you make over $1 million a year, the Republican tax proposal will give you a tax cut of $160,000 on average. And on average, America's middle-income families would have to pay $1,000 more in taxes.

You know, we work for the American people. You are our bosses. So as our bosses, what would you instruct us to do when it comes to reducing the deficit, giving a tax cut to 100 percent of the American people, which will inject demand into the economy and therefore create jobs. So we are reducing the deficit. We're creating jobs, and we're having fairness as a principle as to how we go forward.

Make no mistake, by refusing to vote for the Senate-passed bill, House Republicans are giving more tax breaks to the richest 2 percent, tax breaks they don't need and we can't afford. At the same time they cut taxes for the rich, as I said, they would raise an average of $1,000 on 25 million American families, families who rely on that money for day-to-day needs to pay their bills. That isn't fair, and Democrats will fight to prevent these tax increases on middle-income families in order to give a tax break to the wealthiest people in our country.

Today is a day when we can end some uncertainty. People talk about the cliff. We are going to go over the cliff come January. Let's not even go anywhere near the edge of that cliff. Let's pass this bill today. It will save just under $1 trillion because we're not giving those tax cuts to the high end. That is almost all the money that is needed to avoid the sequestration come January. So again, we are addressing the uncertainty not only in the lives of the American people, but in the life of our economy.

Or today is the day that Republicans will continue to hold the middle class hostage to tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country.

I urge my colleagues to join Mr. Levin, join the President of the United States, join all of us. There isn't a person in this room, in this body, I think, who doesn't support tax cuts for the middle class. Why can't we just do that, do what we can agree upon right now, tax cut by the weekend, alleviating uncertainty for our economy as we go forward, and then we can have a debate about what a Tax Code should look like that has fairness, simplification, and again keeps us competitive, innovative, and, number one, allows the private sector to create jobs. Again, jobs, jobs, jobs.

We will reduce that deficit by having additional revenue, by creating growth, by addressing spending so we are investing in those initiatives that grow our economy. Pretty soon when we end this debate, it will be around the time when America's families will sit down for dinner at the kitchen table or wherever, and they will have these discussions about how they pay the bills, the bills to stay in their home or their apartment, wherever. Discussions on how they will pay for their children's education, how their pensions are affected by all of this. The list goes on and on.

With one vote, we can alleviate that uncertainty. We're not going to eliminate it, but we can lessen it. We have that responsibility. Let's not miss an opportunity to do just that.

So I thank you, Mr. Levin, for your leadership and members of the committee for all of your hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Perlmutter for yielding, and I'm very sad to join my colleagues in expressing the deepest sympathies of the House of Representatives to the families and loved ones of the victims in Aurora, Colorado, and to the entire community as it grapples with its grief.

My colleagues have spoken very movingly from the standpoint of faith; and, hopefully, that faith will be a comfort to those who are affected.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, when we learned of this tragedy, the President ordered flags to be flown at half staff for 1 week to commemorate the tragedy that Aurora, these individual families, and our country had suffered. That was done as a mark of respect for the 12 innocent victims of the senseless violence and for all who were affected.

Of the victims who were murdered, and that's just the word that day, the vast majority were very young people. The one, Gordon Cowden, was a father in his fifties--well, that seems young to me; the others were very young--whose last words to his daughters were to tell them he loved them.

Each of them has a story that deserves to be told. Each was beloved. Each left home with a different expectation of what would happen that evening, and so did the rest of the country.

Several died protecting their loved ones, including John Blunk, Alex Teves and Matt McQuinn. Alex Sullivan was about to celebrate his 1-year wedding anniversary, and that was the celebration, going out to the movies.

A.J. Boik had just graduated from high school. Jessica Ghawi dreamed of being a sports journalist. Micayla Medek and Rebecca Wingo were pursuing their futures at community college.

Two victims, Jesse Childress and John Larimer, were Active Duty military personnel. They signed up to risk their lives for our country to protect our freedom. Who could have ever thought that they would lose their lives going to the movies?

And as a child, Veronica Moser will now forever be remembered as the 6-year-old. What a sad tragedy.

Most of us here in this body are parents and grandparents, and in Steny's case, a great-grandparent, and every person knows the feeling of sending a child off to a movie with their friends, the excitement of an opening night, and then the worry when the minutes tick by and someone hasn't come home.

It is with heavy hearts that we send our thoughts and prayers to the many grieving today, and we continue to pray--thank you for taking us down that path; we continue to pray for the healing of those who survived, both their physical pain and their emotional scars. That's probably the hardest.

We send our gratitude to our first responders. Within minutes, when minutes counted, when seconds counted, they responded with bravery and with professionalism.

In the words of this resolution, the Congress ``honors the resilience of the community of the City of Aurora and the State of Colorado in the face of such adversity.''

May you feel the support and love and prayers of our Nation. May those tragically taken from us be honored and remembered. May time heal our grief.

I hope it is a comfort to those who are affected by this tragedy, who lost loved ones, or have injuries in their families, that so many people throughout the world mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

General Leave

I want to join my colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, in acknowledging that this weekend we will begin the International AIDS Conference, which will come to America with a fitting theme: ``Turning the Tide Together.''

It has a long history. In 1990, expert scientists and political officials from across the globe gathered in San Francisco, in my district, for the International AIDS Conference to turn our promise of leadership into progress. Since that time, however, the conference has never returned to an American venue for two decades. The organizers point to our longtime shameful travel ban on those with HIV/AIDS.

Next week, when the conference assembles right here in our Nation's Capital, the world will see how far we've come. Together, we will commit to turning the tide, as the theme indicates, toward the next stage in our fight: fewer infections and a cure and an end to HIV/AIDS.

Consider what this Congress has done: funding the Ryan White CARE Act, creating housing opportunities for people with HIV, and expanding access to Medicaid for people with HIV, but not full-blown AIDS. That's an early intervention. Also, increased investments in research, care, treatment, and intervention by more than half a billion dollars.

And in response to the global challenge and the leadership of Congresswoman Barbara Lee, we have supported global solutions by increasing funds for bilateral AIDS efforts during the Clinton administration; making the first American contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria in 2000; and working with Presidents Bush and Obama to establish PEPFAR. I know that it is a great source of pride to President George W. Bush for the leadership he provided, the support he gave, and the pride I think he takes in PEPFAR--and we salute him for that.

President Obama has continued that work, more than doubling the support for global health initiatives and doubling our investment in the Global Fund. These commitments and more have helped families in the United States and the villages of Africa and communities worldwide.

These actions have saved lives, but there's much more to do. With the International AIDS Conference coming to Washington, DC, we have an opportunity to recommit ourselves to the cause of a world without HIV/ AIDS. That is the challenge. That is the goal. We can turn the tide together.

After 25 years in Congress, little surprises me anymore; but one thing that does is that after all this time we still do not have a cure. But we're hopeful. And when the AIDS conference opens its doors next week, we must stand united in our pledge to discover a cure and raise an AIDS-free generation. Science is making progress. We have a moral obligation to support that. It has been done in a bipartisan way under President Bush's leadership, under President Clinton, and under President Obama. Hopefully, we can continue to do that.

We can and we must work together to make HIV/AIDS a very, very sad memory and certainly not part of our future. I thank you, Congresswoman Lee, for your tremendous leadership locally and globally and in every way, and certainly in this Congress of the United States.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, more than 2 years ago, we put forth a vision for America's middle class to ensure health care would be not a privilege for a few but a right for all Americans.

Today and yesterday--for the past 2 days--as they've done more than 30 times in this Congress, the Republicans are set to take away that right. Over the past 2 days, we have heard the talking points of the health insurance industry. They're trying to drown out the facts, and the facts are these:

What is the takeaway from this debate? The takeaway is the protections House Republicans are voting to take away from America's families:

Today, up to 17 million children have the right to health care coverage even if they have diabetes, asthma, leukemia, or any other preexisting medical condition. Put an ``X'' next to that. Republicans want to take away protections for children with preexisting conditions;

Today, all young adults have the right to get insurance on their parents' policies. Republicans want to take away that right from America's students and young people. Where we have that coverage for young adults, put an ``X'' next to that;

Today, 5.3 million seniors have saved $3.7 billion on their prescription drugs. Republicans want to take away prescription drug savings for seniors;

Today, small business owners have used tax credits to help them afford insurance already for 2 million additional people, and the bill is not fully in effect. Republicans want to take away the tax credits for businesses to help their entrepreneurship and job creation;

Today, nearly 13 million Americans are set to benefit from $1.1 billion in rebates from health insurance companies. Republicans want to take away those cost savings from America's families;

Today, American women have free coverage. They have a right to free coverage for lifesaving preventative care like mammograms. Starting in August, women will gain free access to a full package of preventative services. No longer will a woman be a preexisting medical condition, but Republicans want to take away those protections from women and all Americans.

Many across the country have heard our Republican colleagues claim that very few people are affected by the preexisting condition provision of the law. The fact is: The Republicans are wrong. The fact is--you be the judge--138 million Americans have preexisting medical conditions.

I ask our friends on the other side of the aisle: Do you know anybody with breast cancer? with prostate cancer? with asthma? with diabetes? people

with disabilities? The list goes on and on. With this bill that you have on the floor today, you will take away their rights to affordable coverage.

That is why the American Cancer Society opposes this repeal effort and their ``13 million cancer patients and survivors who need access to adequate and affordable coverage.'' That's why they oppose this repeal effort, the American Cancer Society.

Do any of you know the millions of Americans living with a disability? With this bill, you take away their rights to quality, affordable care.

That's why Easter Seals wrote:

Millions of parents of children with disabilities are

breathing a huge sigh of relief knowing their children

will not be dropped from their insurance.

Do you know any parents of children with diabetes or asthma or childhood leukemia? Do you know any? With this bill, you will take away the rights of these children to affordable care throughout their lives.

That's why the American Diabetes Association, on behalf of the nearly 26 million Americans with diabetes, urged us to oppose this bill in order to ``protect people with diabetes who for too long have been discriminated against because of their disease.''

My Republican colleagues are taking away patient protections for millions of Americans, protections you as Members of Congress already enjoy. I think that that's an undermining of fundamental fairness. If you repeal this bill, it means you keep your Federal health insurance benefits while you take these patient protections away from the American people. What a Valentine to the health insurance industry.

When I think of people protected by this law, I always remember the powerful testimonial at a hearing last year from Stacie Ritter, whose twin daughters, Hannah and Madeleine, are both cancer survivors. They're 4 years old, and both were diagnosed with leukemia. Hannah and Madeleine faced stem cell transplants, chemotherapy, and total body irradiation. Yet, over time, Stacie said, ``We ended up bankrupt even with full insurance coverage.''

Today, Hannah and Madeleine are happy, healthy 13-year-olds. According to Stacie:

My children now have protections from insurance

discrimination based on their preexisting cancer condition.

They will never have to fear the rescission of their

insurance policy if they get sick. They can look forward to

lower health insurance costs and preventative care.

We passed the Affordable Care Act for people like Stacie, Hannah, and Madeleine, and we passed it for some of the people we heard from today at an earlier meeting. I urge my colleagues to think about them and to think about Stacie and her children when they cast a vote to take away their rights and protections.

Here is what the Affordable Care Act is about:

It's about strengthening the middle class, honoring the entrepreneurial spirit of our country, putting medical decisions in the hands of patients and their doctors. This is about innovation, prevention, wellness. It's about the good health of America as well as good health care for America. It's about restoring and reigniting the American Dream and living up to the vows of our Founders of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's about a healthier life, the liberty and freedom to pursue happiness as defined by your own passions and your own talents and your own skills and your own aspirations. If you want to start a business, if you want to be self-employed, if you want to change jobs, you are not job-locked because your decision about your job, your career, and your life has to be predicated by your health insurance company.

That's what this freedom is in this 1 week from the Fourth of July that we celebrate with this bill.

Now, to make the American Dream a reality for all, Republicans must stop this effort to take away patient protections from Americans.

Let's review again what the GOP is taking away from Americans. This is the takeaway from this debate:

Take away, the Republicans say, protections from children with preexisting conditions; take away prescription drug savings for seniors; take away coverage for young adults; take away preventative health services for women; take away the no lifetime limits, which are so important to so many families in our country.

We must work together on America's top priorities--job creation and economic growth. This bill creates 4 million jobs. It reduces the deficit. It enables our society to have the vitality of everyone rising to their aspirations without being job-locked, as I said.

The American people want us to create jobs. That's what we should be using this time on the floor for, not on this useless bill to nowhere-- bill to nowhere--that does serious damage to the health and economic well-being of America's families.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Let us move forward together to strengthen the economy and to strengthen the great middle class, which is the backbone of our democracy.

Hello, My name is Aracely Rodriguez. I am from San Diego,

CA and I work everyday to ensure that Latina women have

access to comprehensive affordable health services from a

trusted provider.

I have the opportunity to experience first hand what a

difference the Affordable Care Act will be for women,

particularly women of color. It is hard for me to believe

that anyone would want to take away there critical new

benefits for women all over this country.

We know the Affordable Care Act will make insurance more

affordable and provide more choices to women and their

families. As a result of the Affordable Care Act 14 million

women will be newly insured.

Today, about 39 percent of Latinas are uninsured--that is

more than women of any other racial or ethnic group.

The Affordable Care Act will ensure that women have access

to preventative health services such as mammograms and life

saving cancer screenings--and in August, many women will have

access to even more preventive health services such as well-

women visits and birth control without co-pays or

deductibles.

Access to birth control is a critical issue to many Latinas

and their families. Over 50 percent of all Latinas have

experienced a time in their lives when the cost of

prescription birth control made it difficult for them to

consistently use it.

The Affordable Care Act will end gender discrimination once

and for all--so that women are not charged more for insurance

than men.

This is what health reform means to women's health in our

communities. ``Being a woman is not a pre-existing

condition.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I commend him for his extraordinary patriotism, for his commitment to upholding our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, and for recognizing full well the congressional role of oversight of all branches of government. I think we all share the view that Congress has a legitimate role to play in oversight; thus, your committee has so much jurisdiction, and I respect that.

I think we also all agree--I think we all very, very much agree--that we are very sad and seek justice for the family of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. His loss is a tragedy for all who knew him, for all of us who care about him. We offer our condolences to his family. So sad. But that's not what we are here to debate, what we agree upon.

What we are here to debate is something very, very large because it is a major disagreement between the two sides of the aisle here--and I'm sorry to say that--about what our responsibilities are to the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution requires Congress and the executive branch to avoid unnecessary conflict and to seek accommodations that serve both their interests. That's how the Constitution guides us.

As Attorney General William French Smith, who served under President Ronald Reagan, said:

The accommodation required is not simply an exchange of

concessions or a test of political strength. It is an

obligation of each branch to make a principled effort to

acknowledge and, if possible, to meet the legitimate needs of

the other branch.

Mr. Speaker, on the floor today, the Republicans in Congress are not making a principled effort to acknowledge or to meet the legitimate needs of the other branch. What they are doing is exploiting a very unfortunate circumstance for reasons that I cannot even characterize, so I won't; but I will say this without any fear of contradiction:

The basic premise that this debate is predicated on today is a false premise. It is factually not true. In how many more ways can I say that? So we have

a debate predicated on a false premise. What can that lead to that has any good outcome? It is a situation in which we have a contempt of Congress resolution against a sitting Cabinet member, which is the first time in the over-200-year history of our country that this has ever happened. Again, what is the motivation?

Secondly--and that's why I quoted the Constitution--this motion is not a principled effort to resolve the issue. If it were, we would not be able to measure in hours and days, not even weeks, the rush--the railroading--of a resolution of contempt of Congress that the Republicans passed last week and are bringing this week to the House floor.

I say this because I took considerable heat myself when we brought contempt charges against two staff people at the White House--Josh Bolton and Harriet Miers--4\1/2\ years ago. We were asking for some papers. We got nothing, as I said to my friends, not even a wrapper of a piece of gum. Nothing. Stonewalled. Nothing. Yet, at the time, our chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, and our House leadership, Mr. Hoyer and others, kept saying, Find a way. Exhaust every remedy so that we do not have to take this action of bringing a contempt charge to the floor of the House.

For over 200 days, we tried, we tried, we tried to resolve the situation. When we could not, we brought it to the floor--two staff people at the White House--which is in stark contrast to the rush of one week to the next for an unsubstantiated--not even factual--charge against the Attorney General of the United States.

It may just be a coincidence--I don't know--that the Attorney General of the United States, the chief legal officer of our country, has a responsibility to fight voter suppression, which is going on in our country; has refused to defend the constitutionality of DOMA because he doesn't believe it's constitutional; or has some major disagreements on immigration, which fall under the enforcement of immigration law.

It may just be a coincidence that those are part of his responsibilities, or maybe it isn't. But the fact is is that the chief legal officer of our country and his staff have to spend enormous psychic and intellectual energy and time dealing with this unprincipled effort on the part of the Republicans.

Just when you think you have seen it all, just when you think they couldn't possibly go any further over the edge, they come up with something like this. It's stunning. It really is. I don't mean that in meaning it's beautiful. It's stunning. It stops you in your tracks because you say: How far will they go? Have they no limits? Apparently, not.

The temptation is to say: Let's just ignore the whole thing, to not dignify what they're doing by even being present on the floor when they do this heinous act, the first time in the history of our country, to bring contempt against a Cabinet officer. You would think they'd be more careful about what they say. But being careful about what they say is apparently not part of their agenda.

I know in our caucus there is a mixed response to this. They're acting politically; we should act politically. We shouldn't vote on this; I want to vote ``no.'' I think Members have to make their own decision about that. I'm very moved by the efforts of our Congressional Black Caucus to say that they're going to walk out on this. Perhaps that's the best approach for us to take. How else can we impress upon the American people, without scaring them, about what is happening here?

What is happening here? What is happening here is shameful. What is happening here is something that we all have an obligation to speak out against. Because I'm telling you it is Eric Holder today, and it's anybody else tomorrow on any charge they can drum up.

As has been said, the fact is that the papers that they have seen, they know are exculpatory. That means there is no blame on the Attorney General, and they know that. That's why they don't want to bring those responsible for this before their committee, and that's why I commend Chairman Dingell for his leadership in the motion that he will bring to the floor momentarily, a motion of referral, so that we can get to the bottom of this, so that we can see how this happened, so that we can offer some solace to Brian Terry's family, and so that we can have some sense of decency about what should happen on the floor of the House.

It seems to me the more baseless the charge, the higher up they want to go with the contempt. The less they have to say that is real, the higher up they want to bring the contempt charge.

I have always tried to make it a habit of not questioning the motivation of people. They believe what they believe, we believe what we believe, and we act upon our beliefs. It always interested me that in this Congress somebody can bring something to the floor that is not true. But if I were to call someone a misrepresenter of that information, my words would be taken down. So I guess that gives them liberty to say anything because it's in the form of a motion.

Let's make sure that we all take responsibility for doing the right thing by not letting there be an abuse of power, an abuse of this floor of the House, an abuse of the time of the executive branch, an abuse of the time of a member of the Cabinet who has serious responsibilities to our country.

I urge my colleagues to do what they want as far as walking off. I myself had said that I was coming to this floor to vote against this resolution. I thought it was so wrong that there was no question to take the opportunity to vote ``no.'' But listening to the debate, it is almost unbelievable. Not that what they're saying is believable, but unbelievable that they would say it.

I say to those who have a doubt about how they want to proceed, that instead of doing what I said before, which was just to come and treat this as a resolution before the Congress and express my ``no,'' after listening to the unconscionable presentation, I want to join my CBC colleagues in boycotting the vote when we have the walkout after we have the debate over Mr. Dingell's motion.

We all take our responsibilities seriously here, and one of them first and foremost is to support, uphold, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution requires the Congress and the executive branch--as I began--to avoid unnecessary conflict and seek accommodation to serve both interests, the executive branch and the legislative branch. We are not upholding that aspect of the Constitution here.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' or a ``no'' vote, but to seriously reject. Let's hope that this will not be repeated. But I'm telling you, it's Eric Holder one day, and you don't know who it is the next because of the frivolousness with which they treat a serious responsibility of the House of Representatives. It's appalling.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Marion Osher Sandler--a prominent leader, a generous supporter of many humanitarian causes, and a dear friend who died June 1st. Her passing is a great loss to our community and the nation.

Marion Osher was born to immigrant parents who valued both business and philanthropy and encouraged those values in her as well. When Marion married Manhattan lawyer Herb Sandler in 1961, a beautiful family and a lifelong partnership in business and philanthropy was begun.

Marion and Herb together turned a two-branch Oakland savings and loan into Golden West Financial Corporation, with more than 11,000 employees. They ran Golden West for 43 years, she, the marketing and consumer brains of the firm, he the strategist. Marion Sandler was the first and longest serving woman CEO of a Fortune 500 company in the United States.

The Sandlers' success enabled them to give back to the community by funding progressive political organizations and non-profits, particularly those that uplift the disadvantaged and underserved, such as Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union. They helped found The Center for Responsible Lending, which is devoted to protecting homeowners, The Center for American Progress, and ProPublica, an investigative journalism organization.

Marion and Herb also supported lifesaving medical research, most recently donating $20 million to the University of California, San Francisco. The Sandler Neurosciences Center will house world leading clinical and research programs such as The Institute of Neurodegenerative Diseases, the UCSF Department of Neurology, the W.M. Keck Foundation Center for Integrative Neuroscience, and the UCSF Memory and Aging Center.

Marion Osher Sandler lived the American dream. With a deep belief in a brighter future, she used her enormous gifts and talents to expand opportunities for all. She leaves behind a phenomenal legacy of service.

Marion had many friends in the United States Congress. I hope it is a comfort to her family, including her beloved husband Herb, her children Susan and James, her grandchildren Leah and Elijah, and her brothers Bernard and Harold Osher, that so many mourn their loss and appreciate Marion's life.