Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I want to inform the gentleman that the YWCA USA supports the bipartisan Senate bill that we are urging Members to support and reject the House bill. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), who came to Congress fully committed to passing this legislation.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Mr. Becerra of California.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, Congressman Bera, a physician and a new Member of Congress.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a champion on protecting women and protecting them from violence, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida, a freshman Member, Congresswoman Frankel.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Congressman Keating, a former prosecutor and a champion on fighting for the safety of America's women. (Mr. KEATING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another champion on protecting women, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Larsen).

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, may I respectfully request the state of the clock.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a Member of Congress who has been a champion on this issue for a very long time, a health professional in her own right before coming to Congress.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to Congresswoman Kirkpatrick of Arizona who has again every day, every step of the way, been helpful in protecting all women, especially those on reservations.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Lee.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to recognize our distinguished Democratic whip of the House, Mr. Hoyer. He was there in the nineties when we worked to pass this legislation on the Appropriations Committee. He and Rosa DeLauro and Congresswoman Nita Lowey and I worked to fund the Violence Against Women Act. He's been there on this issue for a long time. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I have listened attentively to some of the comments made by those who support the House version of VAWA and they use words like ``all women,'' as the distinguished majority leader said. Not true in the Republican bill. Not all women if you're gay, if you are from the immigrant community, or if you happen to be living on a reservation. I hear the appeal from a freshman Member, very eloquently stated, ``Why can't we work together and put partisanship aside?'' That's exactly what the Senate did, 78-22. A majority of the Republicans in the Senate voted for the far superior bill. We've never had a perfect bill, you're absolutely right. But we have a far superior bill that expands protections, as opposed to the House bill which not only is not as good as the Senate bill, it diminishes protections already in the law. I heard the gentlelady talk eloquently about the money and where it needs to go. It's sad to say that with sequestration, $20 million, according to a new estimate from the Justice Department, will be cut from the Violence Against Women account. That means approximately 35,927 victims of violence would not have access to lifesaving services and resources. So the fact is people have come together on the Senate bill. The House agrees with their bipartisan position. The President stands ready to sign it. It's just the House Republicans that are odd people out on this. It's hard to understand why you think ``some'' equals ``all.'' It doesn't. And that's why it's really important to reject the House version and support the Senate version. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell), a Member of our freshman class.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership as the senior Democrat on the Rules Committee. Today, we have an interesting discussion. We are debating the rule that will enable us to bring to the floor the Violence Against Women Act. As part of the debate on the rule, we are asking a ``no'' vote on the previous question which will enable us also to not only vote on the Violence Against Women Act but, at completion, to go on to voting on the proposal that the Democrats have to resolve the sequester issue. I'll start first, though, with the Violence Against Women Act. As of yesterday, it was over 500 days since the Violence Against Women Act had expired. The reauthorization is long overdue. Last year, the Senate, in a bipartisan way, passed a bill that was comprehensive, that did the job. The House Republicans resisted that. Here we are again, this year, last week, the Senate, in a bipartisan way, passed 78-22 the Violence Against Women Act, which is comprehensive and does the job. That means 78 percent of the Senate voted--78 percent of the Senate voted--for this Violence Against Women Act. It means also that all of the women in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, voted for this act. It also means that a majority of the Republicans in the Senate--a majority of the Republicans in the Senate--voted for this comprehensive Violence Against Women Act. So the Senate has passed it overwhelmingly with the majority of Republicans supporting it. The President stands ready to sign it. Democrats in the House support it. We will call upon the leadership of Gwen Moore, who has a similar bill in the House. We stand ready to support the Senate version. The Senate has passed it, we support it, the President is ready to sign it, and, once again, the Republicans in the House are the obstacle to passing this legislation. It's really hard to explain to anyone why we would say to the women of America, Women of America, step forward; we are stopping violence against women. Not so fast if you're an immigrant, not so fast if you're a member of the LGBT community, not so fast if you're a Native American. What is that? Violence against some women but not others? Quite frankly, the groups that are excluded by the House bill are the groups that are in the most need of protection against violence. So I would hope that in the course of the debate that we will move on to on the Violence Against Women Act that we will all open our hearts to what is needed to reduce violence in the lives of America's women. In the meantime, we have a procedure that is not preferable, we have asked over and over again, as the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) has said, this will be the third time we've asked to get a vote on a Democratic alternative. The American people want to know why we can't pass something to avoid sequestration. We have this proposal that is fair, that does make cuts, that does produce revenue, and that does not impede growth with jobs in our economy. All we want is a vote. Why do we have to beg, hat in hand, for a vote on the floor of the House in this marketplace of ideas? What are the Republicans afraid of? They may be afraid that it will win because it makes so much sense that their Members may be attracted to vote for it. Or they may not want to put their Members on record voting against something that is so balanced, that is so commonsense driven that is a solution, a solution to sequestration. What does sequestration mean? Well, whatever it means, this is what it equals: sequestration equals unemployment. Sequestration equals job loss. And we just cannot have a slowing down of our economic growth. We cannot afford losing the 700,000 jobs. That's the low estimate that has been put forth by economists and by the Congressional Budget Office itself. We urge people to vote ``no'' on the previous question, which means that we would then be allowed to come to the floor to take up the Violence Against Women Act and also to take up the sequestration bill. It is really something that deserves debate on the floor of the House. The Republican leadership has said, well, we voted on that last year. Last year was another Congress. That Congress ended. How to make a law: Congress ends, we have an election, and a new Congress begins. The Constitution says that bills that relate to revenue or to appropriations must begin in the House. So they said, We did it last year. It doesn't count. Let the Senate begin. That's not what the Constitution says. So let us take our responsibility and not be afraid of the ideas that people sent us here to discuss. We don't have to agree on every point, but we certainly should have an opportunity on the floor of the House. People across the country are talking about this. You can't turn on any media without their talking about this. The only place we can't talk about it or get a vote on it is on the floor of the House of Representatives. That's plain wrong. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' vote on the Republican Violence Against Women Act, and a ``yes'' vote on the bipartisan Senate bill when we have an opportunity to vote on that.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I rise with great pride to pay tribute to a very distinguished American and a longtime member of the congressional staff, John Lawrence. In fact, he has served the Congress for 38 years as a member of the staff--30 years of it for George Miller and 8 years as my assistant in the leadership office. I'm happy to pay tribute to him. I'm sad because John will be--and I don't know if the word is retiring--but he will be leaving service in the Capitol. He has always been a great proponent of science, technology, and innovation. As he concludes his service to the House, it is only fitting to cite the words of Alfred Lord Tennyson as inscribed on the walls of the House Science and Technology Committee: For I dipped into the future, far as human eye can see, saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be. Over his nearly four decades serving the Congress, John has always kept his sights and his vision firmly on the future. He believed and he knew that the future is about investing in our children, supporting working families, and strengthening the middle class. He knew that the future is about protecting our environment and preserving our planet for generations to come. John knew that the future of the House is strengthened by fellow staff members working in a bipartisan way. John has always respected the role played by our staffs on the Education Committee, the Natural Resources Committee, the offices of the Democratic leader, and as my role of Speaker of the House and as our distinguished Speaker's role as Speaker today. Indeed, the staff looked to him for leadership, just as Members looked to him for guidance. In that spirit, this afternoon, my colleagues, the Speaker will honor John Lawrence with the John W. McCormick Award of Excellence on which, as declared by former majority leader, then-Majority Leader Carl Albert in 1970: The name of the House employee, who performs the most valuable service for the House, will be inscribed. What a fitting tribute to John Lawrence's 38 years of valuable service, extraordinary leadership, and dedication to the future. We've had the privilege of honoring in a bipartisan way other members of the staff in the Congress, and John's name will bring luster to that list. Colleagues, please join me in thanking a dear friend, my former chief of staff, John Lawrence. I yield to the Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner.

Ms. PELOSI. With the Speaker's permission, I acknowledge Elijah Lawrence, the teenage son of John and Deborah Lawrence, who's with us in the Chamber. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I rise, Madam Speaker, to congratulate Congressman Ruppersberger and the other members of the Maryland delegation and, more importantly, join them in congratulating the Ravens. They beat a mighty champion at the Super Bowl. As a proud 49ers fan who grew up on Johnny Unitas in Baltimore and going to those games as a teenager and raising my own children on Joe Montana and Steve Young, you can just imagine how exciting this game was for me. Mr. Ruppersberger quoted Coach Harbaugh. I will quote him in another way. They asked him after the game, Was it hard coaching against your very own brother in the Super Bowl? He said that it was very hard. The only thing that would have been worse is if one of us were not coaching in the Super Bowl. So while it was hard to lose to the Ravens, it would have been even harder to lose to someone else. If someone had to beat the 49ers, I congratulate the Ravens on a game well played. I was in the stadium. I wondered who on the Baltimore side decided to pull the plug on the electricity. They were wondering who on the 49ers' side did. In any event, there was good spirit. I think if you were there and you saw that delay in the game and you saw the mood of the people, it was a real tribute to the people of New Orleans, who had extended such gracious hospitality in every way. People were in a good mood and they rode out that time. I want to join you in commending the owner, Steve Bisciotti, in his leadership of the Ravens, but I also want to acknowledge the wonderful leadership of Art Modell. He passed away in the fall after being such a great leader in the Baltimore community, bringing the Ravens to Baltimore and in being a part of the city in philanthropic and other ways. He was a great man. It was wonderful to see the Ravens and everyone else, including Governor O'Malley and Mayor Rawlings-Blake, with ``Art'' on their lapels throughout the weekend. So to Art Modell's family, to the ownership of the Ravens, congratulations. To the people of Baltimore, I know how exciting it is and what it means to Baltimore. I extend my congratulations. And I didn't have a bet, because I said while I'm rooting for the 49ers, I would never bet against Baltimore. So congratulations to all concerned.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Well, if the Ravens' and the 49ers' fans can come together, hopefully so can the Democrats and the Republicans on an issue of this grave concern to our country, our budget, which should be a statement of our national values. Instead, as Mr. Van Hollen said, we see the Republicans playing games with the budget. Playing games-- that's what they have been doing and that's what they continue to do as we go into this spring, when we need to find solutions; playing games that give new meaning to the term ``March Madness'' because that's what will result if we have to face a sequester. It's a very bad idea. A sequester should be out of the question, and we should be talking about how we find a solution instead of a sequester. Mr. Van Hollen offered a solution. Here we have a debate on the budget, the blueprint for how we go forward. And the Rules Committee, dominated by the Republican majority, has said we won't even let your proposal come to the floor, not in the form of an amendment or a substitute or in any other way. What are they afraid of? They're afraid of common sense because that is what Mr. Van Hollen's proposal is about. It recognizes that we need to have spending cuts. In fact, we've already agreed to $1.6 trillion in spending cuts in the Budget Control Act. It recognizes that we must address the entitlement issue. In fact, Democrats have already agreed to more than $1 trillion in Medicare savings to strengthen Medicare and to protect beneficiaries. So with that as a basis, we go forward with the Van Hollen proposal, which is a very commonsense solution. It is a plan to replace sequester. It makes further spending cuts in a responsible way. It ends tax breaks for Big Oil, and it ensures that millionaires pay their fair share. Who could be opposed to that? So let's get serious. It's time for us to get serious. We have a serious challenge. We should be working in a bipartisan way to find a solution. Instead, again, the Republicans are playing games leading up to what will make ``March Madness'' a term that would be inadequate for the consequences to our children, millions of whom will be affected in terms of their education and their wellbeing; to our seniors, to our veterans, to our safety industry in terms of cops on the beat. The list of cuts across the board and a meat-ax approach with no common sense given to it is ridiculous. It's ridiculous. Let's stop this march to folly, this ``March Madness.'' Let's get serious. Let's accept the President's challenge that he put forth. If we can't have a big, bold, and balanced solution now, let's at least do something that is balanced and bold as we go forward to the end of the fiscal year, as Mr. Van Hollen has proposed, so that we can do what is right for the American people instead of what is wrong for our economy. What the Republicans are proposing is a blueprint for a downward spiral in our economy. It's irresponsible. It does not have value in terms of being solution-oriented. I might add, in conclusion, Madam Chair, that I'm listening attentively to this debate and I hear my colleagues on the Republican side talking about how important it is to reduce the deficit--and we are in total agreement on that subject. I think we have a moral obligation to reduce the deficit. I think we have a moral obligation to create jobs, to put people to work because growth, in addition to spending cuts and revenue increases, growth is what's going to help us reduce the deficit. But I didn't hear one ``boo'' out of any of the people, not one little hoot, one little peep, or any other sound an endangered species of a deficit hawk would have made during President Bush's term when most of this deficit was amassed--tax cuts for the wealthiest people, which did not create jobs but increased the deficit; giveaways to the pharmaceutical companies with an ill-advised pharmaceutical plan; and two unpaid-for wars. Just not fair to investments that we should be making in America's future, whether it's biomedical research to create cures and to keep America preeminent in terms of science, whether, again, it's invested in the seed corn and the education of our children. The list goes on and on. The list goes on and on of all of the initiatives that are important to growth, to making our future brighter, to keeping America competitive, to keeping America number one. So I urge a strong rejection of what the Republicans are proposing. It's, frankly, silly and, as I said before, unworthy of the challenge that our country faces and the bipartisan solutions that we should be trying to achieve. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, 45 years ago, history was made in the City of Baltimore. On January 23, 1968, Mayor Thomas D'Alesandro III--my brother--watched over the swearing-in of his appointee, Reverend Marion Bascom Jr., as the Baltimore City Fire Department's first African- American Commissioner. Alongside his colleague and partner in the cause of equality, Konstantine Prevas, Commissioner Bascom took the oath of office. In a single act, he changed the face of the city's public servants and heroes--becoming, in his words, ``the first black man to wear a white hat in the Baltimore City Fire Department.'' In a single moment, he altered the course of local history. In the years to come, he and his fellow members of the Board of Fire Commissioners would do more than become a model of racial harmony; they would advance the professionalism and effectiveness of Baltimore's firefighters. Though progress was slow at times--though a history of segregation and bigotry and racism still weighed heavily on the shoulders of Commissioners Bascom and Prevas and others--these leaders fought, step- by-step, to ensure that Baltimore's force of firefighters would exemplify our highest ideals of equality and our highest degree of excellence. Under the leadership of Commissioners Bascom and Prevas, the Baltimore City Fire Department gave African-American members of its ranks a fair hearing--listening and responding to their concerns about living and working conditions, and unfair treatment in areas of discipline, assignments, training, and promotions. It formally recognized the Vulcan Blazers, Baltimore's chapter of the International Association of Black Professional Fire Fighters. To enhance its service to the city, the department expanded community outreach efforts and helped create a new unit in the City Hospital to deal strictly and exclusively with fire victims and their injuries--and today, City Hospital still stands as the first and only burn center in the state of Maryland. The Board of Commissioners oversaw the land acquisition, zoning, historic preservation, and construction of what's now called Steadman Station--located in the heart of downtown Baltimore and once considered the busiest station in the nation. Today, the Baltimore City Fire Department is defined by the legacy of Commissioner Bascom: by fairness, equal rights, professional action, and a wholehearted devotion to public safety. No longer beset by racist policies; no longer held back by the scourge of segregation; no longer deterred by a past of Jim Crow--all because a mayor had the vision to appoint commissioners based on their merits, not simply their race, and all because his appointees had the courage to promote a future of progress. Our family takes pride in its association with this extraordinary era of history for the people of Baltimore. My father, Mayor Thomas D'Alesandro Jr., oversaw the desegregation of the fire department. My brother appointed its first African-American Commissioner. Together, they created a department that reflected the diversity and character of the community it served and protected. Today, 45 years after Commissioner Bascom took his oath, we can all be proud of this legacy. We can take inspiration from the acts of our predecessors. We can pledge to advance our heritage of opportunity, our commitment to fairness and justice, and our promise of equality for all.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him; our ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin; and our ranking member on Budget, Mr. Van Hollen, for their leadership and the clarity they have brought to the debate on the floor today. It's a curiosity what we have on the floor today. It's a subterfuge to distract from the matter at hand. Madam Speaker, once again, as has happened too often in the last 2 years, we have come to the floor at a moment when our Republican colleagues are threatening the full faith and credit of the United States of America and putting the stability of our economy on the line. Too often, families and small businesses have faced uncertainty about the debt ceiling, funding our national government, our Tax Code, and the rest. Three months. Where is the certainty in 3 months? We should not even be having a debate. There should be no doubt that the full faith and credit of the United States will be honored, and that is what our Constitution says. Too often, House Republicans have refused to acknowledge the negative impact of their action, choosing to return to the same tired, failed strategy, one that only serves to, again, weaken our economy and undermine our middle class. That track record must end. Now, I'm hearing people say that we should go down this path of least resistance. That's what I call it. It's an easy way out, 3 months. But the fact is that that is a path to even more problems and, as Mr. Crowley has said, a path to another cliff. Our country needs a clean, long-term debt ceiling increase and a bipartisan, balanced budget that protects Medicare and Social Security, invests in the future, and responsibly reduces the deficit. We all know that. We know that as we go forward to reduce the deficit we need growth in job creation, we need spending cuts, and we need revenue. Democrats have already agreed to $1.6 trillion in spending cuts. Democrats have already agreed to more than $1 trillion in Medicare savings to strengthen Medicare and to protect beneficiaries and not to affect their benefits. Democrats and Republicans came together to avert the fiscal cliff and raise revenues by de-linking the tax cut for the high end from the tax cut for the middle class. We all agree that more can and must be done to get our fiscal house in order. But we must face the facts. Real, lasting deficit reduction will only be achieved through an approach that is balanced, fair, and focused on jobs and the prosperity of our middle class. Unfortunately, this bill on the floor today fails to meet those standards. Americans and Members of Congress should remember two words about this legislation--two words: three months. Three months. That's how long Republicans are prepared to raise the debt ceiling. Today they really don't even address the debt ceiling issue--three months. But Republican leaders are doing more. They have made promises to their fellow Republicans, to get their vote, to even go beyond the Ryan budget. This is like the Ryan budget on steroids. They have called this bill No Budget, No Pay. But who pays under the Republican budget? Seniors pay, ending the Medicare guarantee. Seniors, children, and people with disabilities pay, cutting Medicaid. Children pay because it will cut investments in their education, in their future, in their self-fulfillment, in the competitiveness of our country in the global economy. Veterans pay because of the gutting of our domestic spending priorities. I don't think that we should ever link what we do here as to whether people get paid. We have a lot of work to do here. This linkage is a gimmick, it's a joke, and it's not right. It's designed to put people on the spot and say, you don't get paid, and in order to get paid, in order for Members of Congress to get paid, you must cut benefits for seniors and their Medicare guarantee, Medicaid and the rest. It's a false link. It shouldn't even be there in the first place, and it is wrong. Again, this proposal is a missed opportunity. It does not relieve the uncertainty faced by small businesses, the markets, and the middle class. It is a gimmick unworthy of the fiscal and economic challenges that we face. This proposal does not have certainty. It does not have growth, and it does not have my support. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today, the people of California mourn the passing of a political legend of unsurpassed wit, a political leader of unyielding will, and a force for progress--for women, for Democrats, for our state and our country, Carmen Warschaw. Carmen believed in the power and promise of our democracy. She believed that politics was about people, that the political process should be a force for good, that elections should produce leaders of bold vision and strong values, courage and character. She believed all Americans bore a responsibility to participate, to vote, to make our voices heard. She believed we all had the ability and the obligation to make a difference--whether in a campaign, in our schools, or in our communities. And she never hesitated to act on her beliefs. I was on the foundation of these principles that Carmen made her mark. It was on the basis of these values that Carmen built her legacy. She left footprints on the lives and careers of countless political figures--as a fixture at every Democratic National Convention from 1948 to 2008; as the Democratic Party's Chairwoman in Southern California; as a power broker in state government. She was never afraid to go toe- to-toe with the most powerful people in our state, whether a governor or a state party chair. She would, in the words of her alma mater, always ``fight on.'' She was a pioneer. The daughter of immigrants, she became the first woman to lead the state's Fair Employment Practices Commission, standing firm for civil rights, equality, and justice for all. She was a philanthropist to her core, investing in the causes of Los Angeles' Jewish community; supporting the state and people of Israel; endowing chairs and backing research at USC--the school where she met the love of her life, Louis. She loved music and the arts, and was surrounded by them in her beautiful home. She loved sports, and could regularly be found on a hot summer day in her seat behind the home dugout at Dodger Stadium. She was intensely loyal, fiercely independent, extraordinarily wise, and unabashedly proud of her heritage, her values, and her political activism. Indeed, it was only fitting that Carmen would pass away on November 6, 2012--Election Day. In characteristic fashion, she had already voted, leaving one last, indelible mark on history. To borrow a phrase from Jewish tradition, Carmen Warschaw was a ``woman of valor.'' May she forever be an example of grace, passion, and commitment to all of us. May her memory be a blessing to all who knew her. May it be a comfort to her daughters, Hope and Susan, her grandchildren and great-grandchildren, her friends and loved ones to know that so many share in their grief at this time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart and deep sadness that I rise today to mourn the passing of a dear friend, an unflinching patriot, and a proud American, Samuel Keker. The son of immigrants, born in Colorado and raised in Detroit, Sam came to our Nation's capital as a young man, as a student at American University, prepared to give back to our country and contribute to the public debate--first as a leader on campus, later as a trendsetter and a pioneer across the country. He was a member of the ``greatest generation,'' serving in our Navy with dignity and honor in the theaters of the Atlantic and the Pacific. He remained in the Naval Reserve until 1962, even leaving his job in the private sector to return to duty in the Korean War, ultimately retiring at the rank of Commander. He began a lifetime of work at U.S. News and World Report as an assistant in 1946 and rose through the ranks the only way he knew how: through hard work and dedication, perseverance and persistence. He would emerge as a critical leader on the business side of the magazine, promoting thoughtful, poignant, and accurate journalism, boosting circulation, and delivering the highest-quality reporting to his readers. He would retire at the top of his profession--the Chief Executive and Chairman of his magazine--a fitting conclusion to a long, illustrious, and successful career. He was a person of great wisdom and wit. Sam Keker's greatest source of pride was his family--his wife, Lucy; his sons, John and Jerry; his two grandsons, Adam and Nathan; and his five great-grandchildren. His life was blessed, and his legacy will be a blessing for all who knew him. We hope it is a comfort to his entire family, to his friends and loved ones that so many share in their grief at this sad time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I congratulate her on assuming the ranking position on the Appropriations Committee and how good it is for our country and for the people affected by Superstorm Sandy that Congresswoman Lowey, now Ranking Member Lowey, is in the position she is to fight for their needs as the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee. Thank you for your leadership, and thank you, Mr. Rogers, for yours as well. This should be a day that we shed all of our disagreement about political differences and the rest and come together to prayerfully meet the needs of the people of our country. Whether it's California with the earthquakes, drought, fire, floods, whatever; whether it's Iowa with the floods; Joplin, Missouri, was so affected; of course the challenge of Katrina is emblazoned in our mind; and Hurricane Ike on the heels of that, all across our country we have experienced natural disasters which have had a direct impact on the lives of the American people. I really do believe that for all of the purposes that people send us to Congress or elect us to public office, whether it is a county executive or a Member of Congress, they expect us to do what is right for them when they are most in need of our help. Many things we can do for ourselves; but some things are just beyond the most determined, resourceful operational person to do, and that is when a natural disaster strikes. So while we have had our conversations about what should be in the bill and how the bill should be bifurcated, or in this case trifurcated and the rest of it, let us hope when we have this bill today, it will sweep away some of the concerns that people have about whether this assistance is going to actually show up. Seventy-nine days. It's been 79 days since Hurricane Sandy struck the region. It's been a one-two punch. Last year it was Irene that struck much of the same area, and some of the people haven't really fully recovered from that, whether it was a small business owner or homeowner, whatever. And now Sandy hit with just tremendous force. Others have talked about how do you mitigate for such a thing; how do we address issues that relate to climate change. We'll save that conversation for another day, but recognize it is important in this discussion. How do you mitigate for rebuilding, and that's important in terms of the resources that we're putting to bear on this problem. So let us today try to extract from the minds and the hearts and souls of the people who are affected any thought that the assistance will not be there. They know there's a lot of making up they have to do to restore the lives and businesses and homes that they had before. They should also know that when we say let us pray for the victims of Hurricane Sandy, we're not just saying a prayer and saying that should be a substitute for us honoring our commitment as a country to our people, but that our prayers are accompanied by our best intentions and our best actions--actions, not just words--for them. This is one of the longest delays in congressional action in response to a major natural disaster in recent history. For many of us who have seen or can confirm the aftermath of a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, whatever, we know that every single day is too long to wait. Hope can never come fast enough. We cannot let another moment, hour, day go by without giving the biggest possible vote of confidence and hope to the people of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and some, I understand, in Pennsylvania. So we've had our say. We've made our points known. The justification has been established. The documentation of need is clear. The bipartisan support of the Governor of New Jersey, the Governor of New York, the Governor of Connecticut and others stand ready to implement these resources with the most integrity, the most effectiveness, certainly the most speed. Witness the actions of the mayor of New York. I smile when I say that because mayors just like to get a job done, and Governors, too. So let us, as these executives and county executives and the rest weigh in, let us do our part to honor the social compact that we have with the American people that the Federal Government will be there in time of natural disasters, that this is an emergency and we recognize it as such, and that we honor the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the people affected by it. I hope that we can have an overwhelming bipartisan vote, because from a practical standpoint, I think ideally, our sense of idealism, that would be the right thing to do. But as a practical matter, you just never know what Mother Nature may have in store for you in your region, and you would certainly want the embrace of the entire Nation around you and your area for your constituents, for your communities, for our country. So I urge a very strong bipartisan vote. I thank our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for making this vote today possible. Again, I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Article III, section 2: ``The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; . . . `` . . . to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects. ``In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.''