Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation and commend Congresswoman Sewell and Congresswoman Roby for their leadership in bringing this to the floor and giving us the opportunity to speak about the heroes amongst us.

In some of the darkest hours of our Nation's history, as we all know, there are stories of great courage. By preserving these stories, which this legislation enables us to do, we ensure that

those who come after us will know that the cause of equality is both our Nation's heritage and our hope.

Unsurpassed in courage in our midst is our colleague, the conscience of the Congress, Congressman John Lewis.

On March 7, 1965, as many of us all know, Congressman John Lewis was the leader of 600 peaceful, orderly Americans crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge. He was met by State troopers, tear gas, bullwhips, and nightsticks. Though he faced great prejudice and discrimination, he was not embittered; he was emboldened to dedicate his life to the cause of justice and equality.

It is a great privilege for each of us to serve with John Lewis in Congress, an honor to call him colleague. I want to speak about his leadership in taking so many Members of Congress and their families and friends across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in recent years.

I had the privilege to join him in the year 2001. After the visit, I said to him, of the 3 days we were in your district, Congresswoman Roby, in Montgomery, Selma, and in Birmingham, and the course of the weekend, that the experience was one that every schoolchild in America should experience. We talked about Washington, DC; Philadelphia and Independence Hall; Baltimore and Fort McHenry; Boston with all of that history; New York and the rest, but this is a very important part of who we are as a country. If you want to learn about America, it's important to visit these sites to see the courage, to see the commitment to the values of our Founders that were so courageously defended and advocated for.

At this sad time, and for many of us it was in our lifetimes that this disaster was happening in our country, this ongoing disaster, the culmination of it took so many people a longer time to see. We always talk about the inevitable in the minds of some and the inconceivable in the minds of others, and how our work is to shorten the distance between the inevitable and the inconceivable. Well, it took some people a much longer time to understand what was inevitable for America, that we would be moving, gravitating toward a more perfect union. That would not have been possible without the leadership of people like John Lewis. There aren't many people like John Lewis, but who followed his lead.

There are other Members of Congress who also were leaders in the Nation's civil rights movement, and we honor all of them today. They include Assistant Leader Jim Clyburn, who was arrested several times for his civil disobedience on behalf of civil rights; Congressman Barney Frank and Congressman John Conyers, who both volunteered during the Freedom Summer; Congressman Bob Filner, who spent several months in jail after his efforts as a Freedom Rider, and he takes great pride in being invited back to the reunion of the Freedom Riders; Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, who was an organizer of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; and Congresswoman Terri Sewell, who, along with Congresswoman Roby, is a cosponsor of this legislation. Congresswoman Sewell is from Selma, and her family opened their home to travelers on the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery.

I am sure there are more, but all of these people played a role. John Lewis, of course, an icon in our country for his leadership at that time.

These American heroes made history. They also made progress for our country. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this legislation to ensure that our history and the heroes of it, that that history lives on long after we are gone.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in San Francisco, I am proud to honor Dr. Robert A. Corrigan in his final year as President of San Francisco State University. He has been a visionary leader in higher education and has made enormous contributions to San Francisco, California, and indeed, to our entire nation.

During his 24-year tenure, President Corrigan transformed San Francisco State University into a premier urban university that reflects the diversity of the city it serves, works on behalf of social justice, and educates a 21st century workforce.

President Corrigan has studied and taught at a number of prominent universities; how proud we were when he chose to come to San Francisco State University.

President Corrigan was an early pioneer for diversity in education. At San Francisco State, he made a steadfast commitment to diversity of background, ethnicity, and gender in faculty hiring. He established groundbreaking initiatives to incorporate women and minorities into the faculty, resulting in one of the most diverse faculties of any U.S. university.

Under President Corrigan's direction and guidance, San Francisco State evolved into the ``College with a Conscience,'' boasting a multicultural campus, and a faculty and student body that are actively engaged in public service. San Francisco State's Institute for Civic and Community Service is recognized as a national model. In 2001, San Francisco State assumed management of the City's Head Start Program, one of the few universities to do so, serving 1,800 low-income children.

Corrigan made access to a quality education a priority of his presidency. With his wife, he established the Robert and Joyce Corrigan SF Promise Endowed Scholarship Fund that places higher education within reach of students from underserved, low-income neighborhoods. Joining forces with the City of San Francisco, they created an initiative that ensures admission and financial assistance to qualified San Francisco high school graduates, many of whom are the first in their family to attend college. Indeed, San Francisco State boasts one of the highest percentage of first-generation college students in the nation.

President Corrigan's visionary leadership has been recognized by many. Most notably, he was handpicked by President Bill Clinton to chair the Steering Committee of College and University Presidents for the ``America Reads Challenge'' and ``America Counts'' initiatives.

President Corrigan has been an educator, a role model, and a dynamic leader. On behalf of many of my constituents, I express gratitude for his 24 years of service at San Francisco State University.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his relentless and persistent advocacy on behalf of a thriving middle class in our country and his work to ensure that we would have this payroll tax cut as well as the extension of unemployment insurance that he fought so hard on, as well as on making sure that our seniors are able to see their doctors under Medicare. Congratulations and thank you, Mr. Levin.

I rise today, Madam Speaker, in support of this legislation. Of course, I identify with the concerns expressed by our distinguished whip, Mr. Hoyer, and of Mr. Van Hollen regarding our public employees.

Before I talk directly about what is in the bill, I do want to say that for our country to thrive and for us to do our very best, we must have a great relationship between the public and the private sector. The private sector is the driving engine of job creation in our country, but it cannot succeed unless we also have an effective and thriving public sector. It's about so

many things that relate to our public safety. The courts, the implementation of laws passed in Congress, they don't exist unless the public sector then implements them. So this is a symbiotic relationship that has existed from the beginning of time in our country.

It's not a zero sum game. We cannot say we're going to do this in the private sector at the expense of the public sector. So I salute them for their persistent leadership and recognizing the important role that the public sector plays. It was not necessary for us to go down the path that has been taken in this bill, and I'll get to that in a moment.

First, I want to say that this represents a victory for the middle class in our country, and I salute President Obama for going out there so strongly and taking this message to the American people that it was very important for us to have a payroll tax cut for the middle class. It's important to those families because it puts $40 more into a paycheck to buy groceries, to buy gasoline, and to make ends meet--to make ends meet.

In addition to being personally helpful to families, it has a macroeconomic effect because these families will immediately spend that money and inject demand into the economy, and that is a job creator. Any economist will tell you that this is very important to continuing the economic recovery in our country. To have rejected it, as had been in the mix earlier, would have halted, if not turned back, our economic recovery.

So let us recognize that we had three pillars that we insisted be in this package, we on the Democratic side, one that we would have a payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans, preferably unpaid for, and that is the way it is in this bill. What is unfortunate is that we did not use our choice of a pay-for, should it be paid for, the surcharge, to cover the unemployment insurance. That would have been a preferable place to go, the extension of unemployment insurance. It could have also been used to pay for the SGR, the ability for seniors to see their doctors instead of taking money out of the prevention piece of the Affordable Care Act. Prevention makes America healthier, it saves money, and it expands opportunity for people to get in the health care loop. That's unfortunate, and it could have been avoided as well as the unfortunate provision relating to our public employees.

Even on that score, Mr. Hoyer said, as Mr. Van Hollen did, there was a further compromise that could have been made that addressed some of the needs of the Republicans to vote for this bill without doing more harm to, as Mr. Hoyer said, the recruitment and the retention of public employees, the best--the best--public employees to help implement our laws. And I want to salute all of them for their patriotic duty to our country, to make and keep us safe in every possible way, and to allow commerce to proceed in a very positive way.

Now let's get back to why this is important, this victory for the middle class. This was a fight. Why should it have been a fight? There's something out there in the public, the ``ground truth,'' the common sense coming up from the ground that this was an important thing to do; and the American people overwhelmingly supported it. There's a ground truth out there from the public, common sense coming up from the ground, that in order for us meet our needs and also reduce the deficit, that we should have a surcharge on the wealthiest people in our country, people making over $1 million a year--not having a million dollars--making over $1 million a year.

That was not contained in this bill, but it will be part of the debate as we go forward. So let's take a moment to say that we recognize here on this floor of the House the importance of a thriving middle class to our democracy--to our democracy--and that this action taken today is an important step, but we have much more work to do.

Democrats are committed to reigniting the American Dream, to building ladders of opportunity for all who want to work hard, play by the rules and take responsibility. But we have work to do. In this thriving--this reigniting--American Dream, it's about recognizing the role of entrepreneurialism in our system of small businesses and what they do to grow our economy and how we have a public-private relationship there to encourage small business. And also, again, all of this relates to a thriving middle class.

So I urge my colleagues to be ever-vigilant about every opportunity we can take to support the middle class. Today is a good day in that regard. It's just one piece of it, though. We have much more work to do.

In any bill that comes up, there are things you may not like in it, and you say: Well, I'm not going to vote for it for that reason. On balance, I come down in favor of supporting what the President asked us to do, which we did do, and what the American people want us to do. But I don't want to go forward without registering the concern that we could have done better in this.

One place we can start on our next legislation is to look at the surcharge for the wealthiest people in America instead of taking billions of dollars from preventive care so that we can offset the cost in here. None of it needed to be offset. The payroll tax cut has not been, unemployment insurance has not traditionally been paid for, and we didn't have to do it now. In fact, paying for it diminishes some of its stimulative effect because economists will tell you unemployment insurance benefits paid out are immediately spent back into the Treasury, as the payroll tax cut will be too, and stimulates the economy by injecting demand and creating more jobs.

SGR, we should have gone all the way with it. We should have done it permanently. We could have paid for it with our war savings or with a surcharge at the high end. Republicans said no.

Having said all of that, the fact that we are here today is an admission that this is the right thing to do in terms of the payroll tax cut and unemployment compensation and our seniors. It's a recognition that the American people are watching, and they have little appetite for us to be fighting over what they know is the right thing to do, which is to take every action we can to grow our economy, focusing on the middle class, small business, entrepreneurial spirit, and the rest. Again, we have important work to do to reignite the American Dream in even bigger ways.

So with that, Madam Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House in relationship to the transportation bill that we are currently debating in the House this week.

Transportation, as you know, has traditionally and historically been an idea where our two parties have been able to find common ground. Transportation has been an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats, alike, to work to rebuild America, to create jobs, strengthen our economy, move commerce, move people, improve the quality of life, including public safety--that is, up until now; and that is, until this bill.

With the legislation that we are debating today, Republicans put forth the most partisan transportation package in 50 years. It is not just partisan; it's bad for our Nation, destroying more than half a million American jobs. The transportation bill is supposed to be a job- creating bill. It always has been--until now.

Destroying more than half a million jobs, cutting highway investments in 45 States, bankrupting the highway trust fund with a $78 billion shortfall, and, just the strangest of all, among many shortsighted provisions in the bill, I want to make particular mention of what it does to public transportation. It eliminates all of the dedicated funding for public transportation, leaving millions of riders already faced with service cuts and fare increases out in the cold.

The legislation is so detrimental to our Nation that the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, a former Member of this body on the Republican side of the aisle, has said:

This is the most partisan transportation bill that I have

ever seen, and it is also the most antisafety bill I have

ever seen. It hollows out our number one priority, which is

safety, and frankly, it hollows out the guts of the

transportation efforts that we've been about for the last 3

years. It's the worst transportation bill I've ever seen

during 35 years of public service.

In recommending that the President veto this legislation, the administration has said:

The legislation would make America's roads, rails, and

transit systems less safe, reduce the transportation options

available to America's traveling public, short-circuit local

decision making, and turn back the clock on environmental and

labor protections.

Mr. Speaker, this is so unfortunate because it's so out of character with the American way, the common sense of the American people about what we should be doing for them.

At the beginning of our country, Thomas Jefferson, when he was President, enlisted his Cabinet officers to build an infrastructure plan for America that involved transportation. In the 1800s, this plan, under Secretary Gallatin, the Secretary of the Treasury, was put forth. It recognized that we had made the Louisiana Purchase, that there were Lewis and Clark expeditions going on, and that we had to build America--build roads and transportation out into these territories so that people would move there, commerce would develop, our country would be strong.

Following this, the Erie Canal, the transcontinental railroad, the Cumberland Road, they were all built after the War of 1812--of course, the transcontinental railroad later than that--when our population was sparse and so was our national treasury.

In my own community of San Francisco, the Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco Bay Bridge both were built 75 years ago in the midst of the Great Depression.

President Eisenhower in the mid- to late fifties, not a good economic time either, built and instituted the Interstate Highway System, unifying our country. It was a national security issue to unify our country. It was done at a time when our coffers were low on money, but it created jobs. It did what it was intended to do.

Now we are abdicating our responsibility. Again, 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson; 100 years later, Teddy Roosevelt, and his initiative for infrastructure centered around our national park system and how we make that part of our national patrimony, and some of that falls under the Transportation Subcommittee of the Congress of the United States. Now, here we are, 100 years later, putting forth a bill that loses jobs, diminishes public safety. It's a missed opportunity, and it's no wonder our Republican colleagues are having so much trouble building support for it in their own caucus.

I just wanted to take a moment to share my views with our colleagues about how wrong this is for the future and how out of keeping it is with our great past, which has seen the strength of our country grow because of our investments in our infrastructure and our bringing people together through transportation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for giving us this opportunity to discuss an important matter--the integrity of Congress--on the floor of the House.

I, too, want to join the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Cantor, in praising the leadership of Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, our ranking member on the Rules Committee, and Congressman Tim Walz for their extraordinary leadership over time, their persistence, the approach that they have taken to this to remove all doubt in the public's mind, if that is possible, that we are here to do the people's business and not to benefit personally from it.

I listened attentively to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Cantor's remarks about the STOCK Act and its importance. And it just raises a question to me as to, if it is so important, and it certainly is, why we could not have worked in a more bipartisan fashion either to accept the Senate bill which was developed in a bipartisan fashion and passed the Senate--what was it?--94-6. It's hard to get a result like 94-6 in Congress these days, but they were able to get the result because they worked together to develop their legislation.

We had two good options. One was to accept the Senate bill, or to take up the Slaughter-Walz legislation which has nearly 300 cosponsors. Almost 100 Republicans cosponsored the original STOCK Act. The discharge petition has been calling upon the leadership to bring that bill to the floor. What's important about that is that if we passed that bill, we could go to conference and take the best and strongest of both bills to get the job done.

Instead, secretly, the Republicans brought a much-diminished bill to the floor. It has some good features. So I urge our colleagues to vote for it to bring the process along. What's wrong with it, though, is that it makes serious omissions. And I want to associate myself with the remarks that had been made earlier; but I think they bear repetition, in any event.

Senator Grassley's remarks are stunning. It is really a stunning indictment of the House Republicans in terms of their action on this bill. And I know my colleague has read this into the Record already, but I will, too.

Senator Grassley said: ``It's astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street's wishes by killing this provision''--that would be the provision on political intelligence. ``The Senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry that's behind the scenes. If the Senate language is too broad, as opponents say, why not propose a solution instead of scrapping the provision altogether? I hope to see a vehicle for meaningful transparency through a House-Senate conference or other means. If Congress delays action, the political intelligence industry will stay in the shadows, just the way Wall Street likes it.''

Well, the Senator's statement is very widely covered. The Hill today has a big, full page, ``Grassley: Republicans caved. Iowa Senator says House doing Wall Street's bidding.''

I think it is important to note that on the Senate side there was interest in doing this study that is now in the House bill, and it was rejected by the Senate by a 60-39 vote, to include the political intelligence provision in the bill, rejecting the study. Now that that has already been rejected in the Senate, it's resurrected on the House side, a weakening of the bill.

So whether it's the political intelligence piece proposed by Senator Grassley or Senator Leahy's piece about corruption, I think it is really important that those two elements be included in the bill. A good way to do that, to find a path to bipartisanship in the strongest possible bill, is to pass the bill today despite its serious shortcomings. And it is hard to understand why the shortcomings are there, but nonetheless they are. But pass the bill today and go to conference. To pass earlier or to accept the Senate bill, or to take the original STOCK Act, strong STOCK Act to the floor. Both of those were rejected. Pass this bill and go to conference. It is very important that the House and the Senate meet to discuss these very important issues. With all due respect to a study on political intelligence, that's really just a dodge. That is just a way to say we're not going to do the political intelligence piece.

So again, with serious reservations about the bill but thinking that the better course of action is to pass it, and I don't want anybody to interpret the strong vote for it to be a seal of approval of what it is, but just a way of pushing the process down the line so that we can move expeditiously to go to conference for the strongest possible bill.

I want to close again by saluting Congresswoman Louise Slaughter and Congressman Tim Walz for their relentless persistence and dedication to this issue. Had they not had this discharge petition and the nearly 300 cosponsors, bipartisan, nearly 100 of them Republicans, I doubt that we would even be taking up this bill today. So congratulations and thank you.

Mr. Speaker, all of us come to the floor today, colleagues of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, to salute her as the brightest star among us, the brightest star Congress has ever seen.

When she came to Congress and in her service and leadership here, Gabby Giffords brought to Washington and the Capitol the views of a new generation of national leader. From this floor, she has spoken out courageously and led boldly at times that demanded both.

Since the tragic events of 1 year ago, Congresswoman Giffords has become an inspiring symbol of determination and courage to millions of Americans.

She has brought the word ``dignity'' to new heights by her courage.

Congresswoman Giffords' message of bipartisanship and civility is one that all in Washington and in the Nation should honor and emulate. As Gabby said in her video, which moved us all so much this weekend, we can do so much more by working together.

In that vein, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the courtesies extended to enable this extraordinary ceremony to take place today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permission, I would like to acknowledge Gabby's mother, who is with us today, Gloria, and her father, Spencer, who is watching from Tucson. We thank you.

And we thank Commander Mark Kelly, a hero in his own right as an astronaut and a commander of a mission, but also our personal hero, for the care and love that he has given to Gabby over this past year--oh, and before that, to help make her, as Gloria and Spencer have, the person that she is.

I think all of our colleagues join in thanking you, Gabby, for the honor of calling you colleague and wishing you and Mark much happiness and success. You will be missed in the House of Representatives, but your legacy in this Congress and your leadership in our Nation will certainly endure. So thank you for being who you are, for lifting our country at a very important and sad time. We wish you, again, much success. With great gratitude, admiration, and affection, we salute you, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, one last time.

It is now my privilege to yield the floor to the distinguished majority leader of the House, the gentleman from Virginia, Representative Cantor.

I thank the leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield to Gabby's friend, the distinguished minority whip of the House, the gentleman from Maryland, Congressman Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I know that every Member in the House would like to associate himself or herself with the remarks of our distinguished majority leader and Democratic whip, especially with regard to Gabby, of course, but also Pia.

It is something that every day we have the Chaplain or the guest chaplain come to the floor and ask God's blessing on this House. As Mr. Hoyer said, one of those blessings to us has certainly been the leadership and the life and service that will continue for many years to come of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.

We focus on her. She is our friend. We look at her remarkable recovery with great pride. She also carries in her need for recovery the sorrow of so many others who lost their lives today. So the apparent physical recovery that we see is something even more than we could ever imagine for the challenge that Congresswoman Giffords has faced.

God gave her a very special mission. He gave it to Gabby Giffords because he knew she could carry that burden because he has blessed her with so many, many gifts and a very loving family to make her the person that she is. How fortunate we have all been to be part of her life until now and hopefully for a long time to come.

Now, it is with very mixed emotions, Mr. Speaker, that I yield to Gabby's very good and close friend. I say ``mixed emotions'' because we want her to stay with us, but, intellectually, we know that Gabby has made the right decision. Hopefully, it will be liberating for her in many ways but that she goes with knowing the close ties we all feel personally to her.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield the floor now to a very close friend of Gabby, a leader in this House, the gentlelady from Florida, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Mr. Speaker, in appreciation, once again, for your courtesies enabling this to happen, I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life, leadership, and legacy of our former colleague and a friend of many in this house, Congressman Ed Jenkins.

My colleague, John Lewis, has brought many of us together on this floor or in other public statements to say what an honor it was to serve with Eddie Jenkins, how much we all learned from him. The humor as well as the intellect he brought to his work was definitely, definitely an asset to the work of the Congress.

Eddie Jenkins was a proud son of Georgia. If you heard him say it, you would agree, a self-described country lawyer from Jasper, a public servant dedicated to his constituents, to advancing the interests, hopes, and aspirations of his neighbors down there in Georgia, and in securing future prosperity for all and opportunity for all Americans.

It must be a true honor for Congressman Jenkins and his family that this tribute has been organized and led by the conscience of the Congress, a man of extraordinary leadership and character and a fellow representative from the State of Georgia, Congressman John Lewis.

Congressman Jenkins will long be remembered as a leader willing to work across the aisle, negotiate and build coalitions on behalf of the greater good. He will be remembered in textile mills across the South as a champion of the industry, a defender of good-paying jobs for local workers in small towns and communities across the region for small businesses. He will be remembered as a champion of the Ways and Means Committee for his expertise on the Tax Code, for his wisdom and leadership, with the respect he earned even when his colleagues disagreed with him. And he will be remembered for his legendary tough questioning during the Iran-Contra hearings, a scene that reflected and embodies his strong will, deep character, and core principles--his pursuit of the truth, his commitment to transparency and accountability, and his firm belief in the sanctity of the rule of law.

Congressman Jenkins served his community and our country as a lawyer and a congressional staffer, in the Coast Guard, and as a Member of the House of Representatives. He'll be missed by his friends in Congress, by his friends he served in Georgia, by his neighbors, and loved ones.

We only hope that it is some comfort to his wife of 51 years, Jo; his daughters, Janice and Amy; his brothers, sisters, grandsons, and his entire family that so many share grief at this sad time.

Thank you, Mr. Jenkins, for a life of service to the Congress and the country. Thank you, Mr. Lewis, for providing this opportunity for us to honor a person we were proud to call a colleague and friend.

Mr. Speaker, with the passing of Walter Johnson, the working men and women of San Francisco have lost an extraordinary champion and a powerful advocate; our nation has lost a strong voice for economic justice. Many of us in Congress were proud to call him a friend.

Walter Johnson was a giant in the labor movement, who dedicated his life to advancing and expanding the rights of workers--the cornerstones of a thriving middle class. He championed fair pay for a full day's work, equal rights and protection in the workplace, and social justice and opportunity for all. Walter's imprint can be seen across our city, whether in better conditions for home care workers, greater access to health care, more affordable housing options for families, or increased diversity at San Francisco City College.

Born on April 22, 1924, in Amenia, North Dakota, Walter arrived in San Francisco following three years of service in the United States Army during World War II. While working as an appliance salesman for Sears, he joined the Retail Clerks Union, where he was elected President in 1958, and in 1964 was elected Executive Officer, the top position in his local. Under Walter's leadership, the rights of women, people of color, and gay people working in retail were protected. His expert guidance resulted in his subsequent re-election over the next 11 years.

Walter was elected Secretary-Treasurer of the San Francisco Labor Council in 1985 and held that post until he retired in 2004. From that powerful perch, he fought for workers' benefits, health care reform, and workplace equality. Walter educated, enlightened and mobilized union members to fight the unjust and unfair practices that existed in the workplace. He had a special talent for negotiation, helping to settle many contentious disputes.

Walter possessed unflinching moral courage. He spoke out against the Vietnam War, even though it was supported by the AFL-CIO national leadership. He was one of the first labor leaders to give unconditional support to the gay rights movement. Even after his retirement, he was active in labor demonstrations, where he walked picket lines and was arrested at sit-ins.

A humanitarian, Walter's friendships extended far beyond the labor community. He was known by all, from the owner of the corner store to the homeless person on the street. His friends were blessed by his generous nature, his wry sense of humor, and his penchant for storytelling. He was rarely without a personal anecdote or a footnote from history.

Walter Johnson's life was a story of extraordinary courage, leadership, and service to the labor community and the people of San Francisco. His legacy will live on in our continued pursuit of fairness and workers' rights in our city and across the country.

We hope it is a comfort to Walter's son Lawrence, his daughter Emily Davis, his grandchildren and a multitude of friends and loved ones, that so many share their grief and are praying for them at this sad time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Warren Hellman: a community leader, a San Francisco legend, and an American success story. Sadly, Warren passed away on December 18th, surrounded by his loving family.

Warren was a tremendously successful businessman: at 28, he was the youngest partner in Lehman Brothers history; at 39, he became the firm's president. It was his business acumen that allowed him to pursue his true passion: philanthropy.

With his deep generosity, intellectual curiosity, and visionary dynamism, he changed the face of our city. His legacy will live on through his contributions to education, music, and civic life.

When Warren saw an opportunity to enrich our city, he acted upon it. He strengthened and beautified Golden Gate Park. He worked to end homelessness. He supported the San Francisco Free Clinic, and he endowed aquatic sports at UC Berkeley, where he had played water polo as a student. Concerned about dwindling local news coverage in the Internet age, he helped form the Bay Citizen online journalism site. Warren served on the board of Mills College and University of California, Berkeley's Haas School of Business.

Warren was a lover of music, a lover of family, and a lover of life. The three-day concert he founded, Hardly Strictly Bluegrass, held each year in Golden Gate Park, has allowed hundreds of thousands of fans each year to enjoy the music that enriched his life. Warren was involved in every aspect of the festival, including personally recruiting musicians he admired. It is so fitting that Speedway Meadow, the site of the festival, was renamed Hellman Hollow just last week. I know this pleased Warren immensely.

With the passing of Warren Hellman, San Francisco has lost a beloved champion. But we can honor his memory and his enthusiasm by celebrating his many contributions.

Warren Hellman excelled at everything he did, including being a friend. I was proud to call Warren my friend. I hope it is a comfort to his wife Chris and the entire Hellman family whom he cherished that so many mourn his loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to pay tribute to the passing of a man whose legacy to San Francisco is a great one. I rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Warren Hellman, a community leader, a San Francisco legend, and an American success story. Sadly, Warren passed away on December 18, surrounded by his loving family. That was the way he lived, surrounded by his loving family.

Warren was a tremendously successful businessman. And it was his business acumen that allowed him to pursue his true fashion, philanthropy. He was a Renaissance man. That's how his daughter described him, and that's how we all saw him. With his deep generosity, intellectual curiosity, and his visionary dynamism, he changed the face of San Francisco. His legacy will live on through his contributions to education, to music, to civic life, and to the memory we all happily have of him being such a modest athlete, something he took great pride in.

When Warren Hellman saw an opportunity to enrich our city, he acted upon it. He strengthened and beautified Golden Gate Park. He worked to end homelessness. He supported the San Francisco Free Clinic, many of those people availing themselves of the services there being homeless. Concerned about dwindling local news coverage in the Internet age, he helped form the Bay Citizen online journalism site. Warren served on the board of Mills College and the University of California at Berkeley's Haas School of Business. He was in a leadership role in everything that he did.

I mentioned that he was an athlete. He endowed aquatic sports at U.C. Berkeley, where he had played on the water polo team as a student. Whether it was bicycling, swimming, running, skiing, you name it, Warren was the best.

He was a lover of music, a lover of family, and a lover of life. The 3-day concert he founded--well, it used to be called Strictly Bluegrass; but as the program expanded and more entertainers wanted to participate and the audience turned out for them in the hundreds of thousands, it was changed to Hardly Strictly Bluegrass. So it wasn't strictly bluegrass. It is held each year at Golden Gate Park and has allowed hundreds of thousands of fans each year to enjoy the music that he loved--mostly bluegrass. And it was all free. Warren was involved in every aspect of the festival, including personally recruiting musicians he admired; and an invitation from Warren was one that was warmly responded to by the biggest names in music. It is so fitting that Speedway Meadow, the site of the festival, was renamed Hellman Hollow just last week. Just last week. So I know this pleased him and his family immensely.

I mentioned his interest in education and the arts. He and his wife, Chris, were really such magnificent patrons of the San Francisco Ballet. It's hard to match or surpass the contributions they have made intellectually and by way of encouragement in every way and certainly philanthropically.

With the passing of Warren Hellman, San Francisco has lost a beloved champion. We honor his memory and his enthusiasm by celebrating his many contributions. I said that he was good at everything he did; and that included being a friend, a friend to so many who will miss him so much. I am proud to call Warren a friend; and I hope it is a comfort to Chris, his wife, and his family whom he cherished. And he couldn't talk enough about them. He was so very proud of them and rightfully so. I hope it is a comfort to them that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

Tomorrow there will be a public service to honor his life and legacy. It will represent an outpouring of people from every aspect of San Francisco life, every economic strata, from homeless people to the most privileged and successful in terms of their measure of success. But it will also represent people in the public and private and nonprofit sectors. This was a very special person, and I want everyone who follows the work of Congress and the pride that we all take in representing our districts and our constituents to know how proud we all were of the life and leadership of Warren Hellman.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I thank her for her leadership and fighting the good fight at the Rules Committee. I commend her for her patience and also for her great knowledge that she brings to this debate.

But this is a pretty simple matter. The fact is what we're debating here today is of the utmost importance to the American people, to America's working families, and they know it. So much of what we debate on the floor may appear irrelevant to meeting their needs. This has a direct connection.

The debate that we have around our table of discussion here relates directly to discussions that are happening at kitchen tables across the country, as people prepare for the holidays, to see if they're going to be able to have a holiday and if they're going to be able to pay the bills come January.

Last night, the leadership of the Republican Party announced that the procedure today would be that we would be able to vote up or down on the Senate bill. In a matter of minutes, by the time it went to the Rules Committee, they changed that and said we wouldn't have a chance to vote up or down on the Senate bill.

This isn't, though, about process. It's about why is this happening, and why can't we get the job done for the American people.

What is at stake is the following: Given the chance to have an up-or- down vote on the Senate bill will probably attract some Republican support. When passed, it could go directly to the President, be signed into law today, removing all doubt in the minds of the American people as to whether the following will occur:

They will get up to a $1,500 tax cut, middle income families; 160 million American workers will get the tax cut. It will mean 48 million seniors will have access to their doctors under Medicare. It will mean up to 2 million people will be receiving unemployment insurance in the next 2 months. For some of those people, losing that unemployment insurance cuts off any means of support for them.

Is that what we are here to do?

I thought we were here to do what the American people want us to do. What they have said they want us to do is to work together to get the job done. Why can't we work together, A.

B, they want jobs, and they want this tax cut. Democrats, Independents, Republicans want this tax cut. In fact, Republicans, at 50-something to 30-something support the payroll tax cut. That is Republicans across the country. Republicans in the Senate voted for this tax cut, 39 of them did. Ninety percent of the Senate, in a bipartisan way, voted for this tax cut. It is just the extreme Tea Party element of the Republicans in the House of Representatives who are standing in the way of a tax cut for 160 million Americans, unemployment benefits for millions of Americans, and Medicare opportunity for 48 million seniors.

Republicans say this is too short. It reminds me of a Yogi Berra story. He said: I don't like the food at that restaurant. Besides, the servings are too small.

Well, that's just what they're saying here. They've never wanted a tax cut, and now they're saying the tax cut for middle income people is too small. So what is it?

The record shows that, in the beginning of the summer, Speaker Boehner said that the tax cut, even the 1-year tax cut, was a short- term gimmick and he opposed it. It wasn't until President Obama went across the country with the American Jobs Act to persuade the American people to support the job creation that he was advocating, one part of that was a payroll tax cut. The American people overwhelmingly support that. They want us to get that job done.

So the only reason the Republicans are using the subterfuge, these excuses, is because they never wanted the tax cut to begin with. Our distinguished Mr. Hoyer said it very well. The bill they put forth is designed to fail, designed to fail because they didn't want it to begin with.

But this is deadly serious to the American people. The Senate Republicans opposed bringing up the House bill, the Republican House bill, in the Senate because they knew it would fail. The Republicans in the House--let's repeat that. The Republicans in the Senate refused to allow a vote on the House Republican bill because they knew it would fail. The Republicans in the House refused to bring up the Senate bill here because they are afraid it will pass, and it will pass and give the tax cut, take us down a path where we can go forward to make plans for how we extend it for one solid year.

But how do you explain this to the American people? Ninety percent of the Senate has voted in a bipartisan way--that's what the American people want us to do, to work together--for a tax cut that the American people want in overwhelming numbers and that we have the opportunity to do right here and now today.

President Thomas Jefferson said very wisely that every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. And so let's see what this is today. Is this a difference of opinion of the path we can go down to have tax relief for the American people which, economists say, this tax cut will create jobs? If we don't pass it, as many as 600,000 jobs can be affected, either lost or not continued or not added, 600,000 jobs because of the demand injected into the economy by putting money into the pockets of the American people, by providing unemployment benefits, which are spent immediately and inject demand into the economy, therefore creating jobs.

This is dangerous business not only for how it impacts individual families and their survival. It's about the success of our economy, and not passing this bill today can hurt our economic recovery.

So let's really be clear. Republicans said we were going to have a vote on the Senate bill. They were afraid it would win; they pulled that. So now we have to be engaged in these process maneuvers. That's only an excuse. It's not a reason to reject the tax cut. It's an excuse because they never wanted the tax cut from the beginning.

So let's understand what we're here about.

Getting back to President Jefferson, every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. But maybe here it is. Maybe the principle at stake here is the anti-government, ideological warfare that the Tea Party Republicans in the extreme have taken us to. They, alone, are standing in the way of a tax cut for the middle class. Republicans across the country support it, Republicans in the Senate support it, some Republicans in the House support it. That's why we're not getting a chance to vote on it.

So let's understand that this is a pattern of House Republicans isolating themselves from the mainstream of even their own party across the country and their colleagues in the Senate who may or may not like this bill. It isn't the bill most of us would write, but that's what a compromise is. So it's not as if this is a mad, wild embrace of this. It's facing the reality of a two-party system of needing 60 votes in the Senate and the Republican majority in the House.

I thought the Speaker said that this was a victory after it passed in the Senate. He was the one who instructed Harry Reid--insisted that Senator Reid have a discussion with Mitch McConnell. Was that just a farce, too?

Is this all just a delaying, stalling tactic that says we were never going to do it before? Remember Yogi Berra: I don't like the food at that restaurant, and the servings are too small. They don't like the tax cut, and now they're claiming that it is too small. Yet when it was a 1-year tax cut, it was called a gimmick by the Speaker of the House.

So I urge my colleagues to certainly vote ``no'' on the rule. The Speaker is

proud of saying, The House will work its will. Well, it won't if we don't have the opportunity under the rules of the House that are put on this floor in opposition to the wishes of the American people to take a simple vote on a bill that comes in with the strength of a 90 percent bipartisan vote in the Senate of the United States.

So it's clear: they never wanted a tax cut. Anything they put forth is designed to fail because that is what they want to do.

I tell my caucus--and they may be tired of hearing it from me--that it is like a gentleman who is wooing his potential fiancee and keeps asking her to marry him. And she says, Of course I'll marry you. I can only do it on February 30. Well, that day is never coming. Nor is the day coming when the Republicans will wholeheartedly support a tax cut for the middle class. Their focus has been on tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country, and those wealthy people want a tax cut for the middle class.

Let's see what the American people want.

Let's vote ``no'' on this rule so that we have an opportunity to vote ``yes'' on the Senate bill that can be sent to the President this very day so that we can truly wish people a happy holiday season.

Mr. Speaker, as we gather here, President Obama is at Fort Bragg honoring and thanking our men and women in uniform for their service in the war in Iraq and for the sacrifices they've been willing to make to keep us the home of the brave and the land of the free.

America's brave men and women in uniform have done everything that has been asked of them. They have performed with valor, with courage, with patriotism and a dedication to duty.

It is because of our troops and the leadership of President Obama that this month we will be able to say that the war in Iraq is over, our troops are coming home for the holidays with their families. As we thank our troops, we also thank the families of our men and women in uniform for the sacrifices they have been willing to make for our country.

President Obama promised to end the war in Iraq responsibly. Promise made, promise kept. When he took office, nearly 150,000 American troops were deployed in Iraq. This month our troop presence will wind down to just around a few thousand. In winding down the war, the President honored the wishes of the American people.

As we mark the end of the war, we honor the nearly 4,500 Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq. Tens of thousands more have been wounded. We will never forget those who were lost in the war. We will forever be grateful to them and to their families.

I'm from Baltimore, Maryland. When my father was mayor, they built Baltimore stadium. What would they call it? The consensus name was Baltimore Memorial Stadium to honor those who made so much sacrifice for our country. General Pershing said, and that was engraved on Baltimore Memorial Stadium, ``Time will not dim the glory of their deeds.'' Time will not, indeed, dim the glory of those who served and sacrificed in Iraq.

I'm particularly proud to have presided over 4 years of a Congress that made more progress for our veterans and military families than has been made since the passage of the original GI Bill in 1944.

But our work is not done. On the battlefield, the military says we will leave no soldier behind. And when they come home, we promised, Democrats and Republicans working together, to leave no veteran behind.

Over a million of our men and women in uniform served in Iraq. We must honor their service with economic opportunities and the benefits they deserve. We must remember that our commitment to our veterans is not while they serve or even for life. It is a commitment forever, to them and their families.

We must build a future worthy of their sacrifice. As the war in Iraq comes to an end, we express our enormous gratitude to those who have served. Because of them, we express our great optimism for the future.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his presentation on why we are here today and why the rule that is being brought to the floor is not the right one, because it does not allow for us to have options for the American people to be considered.

One of those options I want to talk about has been described by the President.

President Obama last week in Kansas made a glorious speech harking back to President Roosevelt's speech about the middle class and its importance to America's democracy, how it is the backbone of our democracy. President Obama said last week we are greater together when everyone engages in fair play, where everyone gets a fair shot and everyone does their fair share. This isn't about one percentage and another percentage. It's about all Americans working together.

President Obama put those words into legislative action with his proposal for a payroll tax cut for middle income families, as well as unemployment insurance for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Democrats have a proposal today which we cannot take up on the floor because the Republican rule is perhaps afraid of the vote we might get because it does so much for America's working families.

I want to remind our colleagues that for a long time the Republican leadership did not support a payroll tax cut at all. Rhetoric coming from the Republicans was, We don't believe in extending the payroll tax cut; however, we do want to make permanent the tax cut for the wealthiest people in America--those making over $1 million a year.

So the President taking this to the public and the reinforcement of that message by our Democratic colleagues in the House and in the Senate has made the payroll tax cut an issue too hot for the Republicans to handle.

So they're bringing a bill to the floor today which says they're for a payroll tax cut, but has within it the seeds of its own destruction because it has poison pills, which they know are not acceptable to the President and do not do the best effort for the American people.

You have plenty of time, Mr. Chairman. You're the chairman of the committee; I'm not.

I'm not going to yield to you because you make your points all day. I'm making mine now.

And one of the points I would like to make is about the Democratic substitute which the chairman of the committee said we could not bring to the floor. But it's important for the American people to know that it mirrors what the President has proposed.

The bill would cut taxes by $1,500 for the typical American family. It would secure a critical lifeline for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. It would ensure that seniors still get to see the doctor of their choice with a permanent doc fix that is contained in the bill. Our proposal would protect and extend the tax cut for 160 million Americans while asking 300,000 people, those making over a million dollars a year, to pay their fair share.

The Republicans not only said no to the bill; they said, no, your substitute cannot even be considered on the floor.

The President has said--and the Democrats in Congress agree with him--that we cannot go home unless we pass a tax cut for the middle class, that we cannot go home unless we pass the unemployment benefits for America's working families.

Across the country, families are sitting at their tables. Christmas is coming. I say it over and over that Christmas is coming. For some, the goose is getting fat, and for others, it's very slim pickings. Families are sitting around their tables, having to make difficult choices: Can we put gas in the car and still afford to put food on the table? As the holiday season comes upon us, can we buy toys for our children during the holidays and be able to pay the bills when they come due in January?

As families gather around those tables, making those decisions, Democrats have put our ideas on the table. We are willing and ready to reach across the aisle in order to complete our work and give 160 million Americans the gift of greater opportunity and security, of hope and optimism during the holiday season and the New Year. You cannot do this by saying, We're going to put something in the bill that the President says he will not sign.

It's hard to understand how you can say you're for something except you're going to put up obstacles to its passage. The macroeconomic advisers have said that the proposal the President has put forward will make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy. If we fail to do this, we are, again, risking those jobs and we're missing the opportunity. As the previous speaker said, let's put the money in the pockets of America's workers.

Welcome to the payroll tax cut, I say to our Republican colleagues-- what you have long resisted but what the President has demonstrated there is public support for.

Let's reject this rule so that we can have a fair debate on the President's proposal, which is fair to America's workers and stronger in terms of the macroeconomic impact it will have to inject demand into the economy, which will create more jobs and make the holiday season a brighter one for many more Americans.

Let us put the Republican proposal on the table and the President's proposal on the table, which has the full support of Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate, as opposed to the Republican proposal they put forth in the Senate, which didn't even win the support of a majority of the Republicans. Let's come together; let's find our common ground; let's get the job done; but let's understand that we cannot leave Congress--that we cannot go home--until we meet the needs of the American people.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and to fully support the best possible payroll tax cut for the middle class, unemployment benefits for our workers, as well as for our seniors to have the ability to have the doctors of their choice.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for his leadership on this important legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend him for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of America's working families. He has demonstrated a long-term, consistent dedication to their well- being.

Mr. Speaker, I return to the floor. I spoke on the rule earlier. But I listened attentively to the debate, and I think a few points need to be made, and I will do that very briefly.

It is clear that the Republicans, in using the pipeline, are trying to change the subject. The subject at hand is, we have a proposal from the President of the United States which has within it proposals that have had bipartisan support over a period of time on how to have a payroll tax cut that benefits many middle-income families in our country, that respects that some people are out of work through no fault of their own and need unemployment insurance, and that our seniors want to have the doctor of their choice, and that issue has to be addressed here. The fact is is that because of the way the rules were set up--not to go into process--but the Republicans said, You are not even going to be able to bring the President's and the Democratic proposals to the floor. Instead, we are going to bring ours to the floor. But so that the public doesn't really understand the difference between the two, we are going to have a smokescreen go out there, a smokescreen of confusion by talking about the pipeline. And this is very interesting because this isn't about the pipeline.

We, as other speakers have said, could have a vote on the pipeline at any time, to vote it up or vote it down, consider what it means for jobs and the impact on the environment. And it doesn't reduce dependence on foreign oil. But nonetheless, that is a subject for debate at another time. I, myself, have not made a public statement one way or another. But many of our colleagues have. They are either supporting it or they are not, but that is not the point of the legislation. Many who support the pipeline are opposing this bill because they know it is being used. It is being used. And some of our friends in labor want this pipeline built. But I assure you that they want unemployment insurance for workers who, again, through no fault of their own, are out of work.

So let's just take a few points here. The proponents of this bill who are using the pipeline as a smokescreen and as an excuse say that it will create 20,000 jobs. Let's hope that that is correct. But what it's doing is standing in the way of the President's proposal, which will create 600,000 jobs, which will make an impact of 600,000 jobs on our economy. That's from the macroeconomic advisers. It will make the difference of 600,000 jobs. So while they are professing these 20,000 jobs, which may be a legitimate number--and let's say it's the highest number they could come up with, let's have that debate on another day. You may see a very big, strong vote on the floor for the pipeline, or you may not. So the point is, 20,000 jobs--if that's the argument-- versus 600,000 jobs.

The other point is that the President's proposal affects 160 million Americans; 160 million Americans will have a payroll tax cut, according to his proposal, in a substantial way. This is not, as the Republicans want to do, to throw a bone to the middle class. This is about a thriving middle class. It's about a payroll tax cut that does what it sets out to do, puts $1,500 in the pockets of America's families who need it and spend it and, in doing so, injects demand, demand, demand into our economy, which further creates jobs. And how that is paid for is by a surtax on those making over $1 million a year.

So 160 million people affected; a surcharge on 300,000 of the wealthiest people in America. We don't begrudge them their wealth, their success. That's important. I don't think that any one of those 300,000 people would begrudge the 160 million Americans their payroll tax cut. But I do think it is the extremists on the Republican side in the House of Representatives who have an ideological point of view, and that is what is at work here. It isn't about those 300,000 begrudging the 160 million, and it isn't about the 160 million begrudging the 300,000. So let's understand the numbers here.

I want to reference the chairman's bill. Who sacrifices under the Republican bill? Seniors suffer $31 billion. Instead of a surcharge on the 300,000 wealthiest people in our country making over $1 million a year, the Republicans pay for the payroll tax by taking $31 billion from seniors. Federal workers sacrifice $40 billion. Unemployed Americans sacrifice $11 billion. Billionaires sacrifice zero. I think all Americans are willing to do their fair share. We all have to do our part, take responsibility, zero. So again, 20,000 jobs, 600,000 jobs; 160 million Americans, 300,000 Americans; $31 billion from Medicare.

The President's proposal and the Democratic plan that mirror each other reduce the deficit by $300 billion. And according to the Congressional Budget Office--and I will read from a Congressional Budget Office letter to Mr. Camp. The independent, nonpartisan Budget Office of the House, writing to Mr. Camp said, ``According to Congressional Budget Office's and Joint Tax Committee's estimates, enacting H.R. 3630''--the bill before us--``would change revenues and direct spending to produce increases in the deficit of $166.8 billion in fiscal year 2012 and $25.3 billion over the 2012-2021 period.''

So let's just take the lower number, $25 billion in the life of the bill. That's what the CBO says about the bill before us. That's why earlier today, there was a motion to say that this was not in keeping with being revenue-neutral, as the Republicans espouse and we agree.

So again, the numbers: 20,000 jobs with the pipeline--and that may be a good thing, but this is not the place. This is a smokescreen. This is a distraction. This is a change of subject. This is the masters of confusion so you don't know what really is at stake here.

You couldn't possibly be sincere about a payroll tax cut that makes the middle class thrive if you put an obstacle like that in front of it and call it a jobs bill to create 600,000 jobs. One hundred sixty million Americans benefit from this. Please don't tax 300,000; instead, take $31 billion from our seniors. Reduce the deficit by $300 billion; increase the deficit by $25 billion. The numbers are clear. They speak for themselves.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I hope that we can come to the table and

share a view that this middle-income tax cut is worth doing without obstacles to its being signed into law, and that we can do it soon. I say it over and over again: Christmas is coming. For some, the goose is getting fat; for others, there are very slim prospects. Let's change that. Let's do the people's work. Let's get this done. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and joy that I join my constituents in celebration of the centennial season of the San Francisco Symphony. Its illustrious history is marked by commitment to artistic excellence and innovation; its future is sustained by its large and loyal base of supporters.

One hundred years ago today, December 8, 1911, the Symphony gave its first performance. In recognition of this historic occasion, on September 7, 2011 we began a year-long celebration with a free outdoor concert at the Civic Center Plaza with Conductor Michael Tilson Thomas, pianist Lang Lang and violinist Itzhak Perlman. This concert demonstrated the San Francisco Symphony's value of making music available to everyone. The founders believed music was a source of enrichment and pleasure intended for all and not the province of the privileged few. Reaching broader audiences has always been a priority, from recordings and radio broadcasts in the 1920s to video and internet today. Today the San Francisco Symphony has accomplished one of its early goals, to offer music to a city, to a Nation and to the world.

To help commemorate the centennial over the next year, San Franciscans will welcome notable performers and six of our Nation's greatest orchestras will visit San Francisco:

the Boston Symphony, the Chicago Symphony, the Cleveland Orchestra, the Los Angeles Philharmonic, New York Philharmonic and the Philadelphia Orchestra.

The centennial presents a wonderful opportunity to honor the Symphony's robust musical history, starting with the Barbary Coast. Over the past century, the Orchestra has grown in stature and acclaim under the leadership of eminent music directors, including Pierre Monteau, Seiji Ozawa, Herbert Blomstedt, and since 1995 Michael Tilson Thomas.

Michael Tilson Thomas has brought pride to all San Franciscans. He has served as Music Director for 15 years, and this is his 25th season as Artistic Director of the New World Symphony--an academy for training the next generation of orchestral musicians. A recipient of the 2010 National Medal of Arts, the highest award given to artists by the President, and winner of seven Grammy Awards, Thomas has been a remarkable mentor and supporter to many young artists, and he has educated millions about the joy of music.

The San Francisco Symphony provides the most extensive education and community programs offered by any American orchestra. Concerts for children have been part of the programming from the beginning and the groundbreaking Adventures in Music program, now over 20 years old, provides music education and free concerts to every first through fifth grader in San Francisco's public schools--75,000 children each year.

We offer special congratulations to John Goldman, the Symphony's President, whose generosity and family philanthropy have had a dramatic impact on the quality of life in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Symphony is blessed with an active board of governors with deep philanthropic and social ties to our City as well as tremendous public support. Thank you to the Symphony's brilliant musicians, dedicated staff and volunteers.

The first one hundred years of the San Francisco Symphony have been distinguished by outstanding concerts of the highest quality. Its second century is certain to be just as successful.