Floor Statements

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.''

Mr. Speaker, here we are again today in wonder over the decision that we think has been made by the Republican leadership in the House not to bring legislation to the floor that addresses the needs of those affected by Sandy.

Here's the thing: Everyone who heard about this since last night, when so many Members from the New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, other delegations came to the floor to speak about this, said, Don't tell me that. Don't tell me that. Don't tell me that, even though everyone has seen very clearly the devastating damage that was caused by Sandy and the need for people to have assistance, the House would not take up the bill.

Don't tell me that, even though the Senate passed a very strong bill addressing the well-documented needs of the people of the affected region, the House is not taking up the bill.

Don't tell me that, although the region, the leadership, the Governor of New York, Governor Cuomo; the Governor of New Jersey, Governor Christie; the Governor of Connecticut, Governor Malloy; the Mayor of New York, Mayor Bloomberg; and others have immediately addressed the needs to the extent possible by them in their areas and have documented the needs very carefully as to what Federal participation was needed, don't tell me that the House of Representatives is going to ignore that.

Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the need for more civility in politics and in government, and that civility perhaps relates to how we speak to each other and how we curb our enthusiasm about issues we care a great deal about and question, perhaps, motivation of others.

But the real civility that people expect is how this Congress treats them and treats their needs. And never is that tested more clearly than in time of a natural disaster, because that's when people feel the most helpless. That's the time when they see whether the government is there for them or not. That is the time where--they're not going to be made whole, most of these people. Hopefully, what they replace will be a good substitute, and maybe it can open a door to something new for them.

But by and large, it's a long road back. But that first few steps of it, the emergency relief that was provided by the localities and now needs to be compensated for, the next stage of recovery is so essential to the character of a community.

As Mr. Tonko said after the storms last year, it affected the character of the communities in his district, and that was 2011. Here we are at the end of 2012, having some of the same regions hit again by nature with the suddenness and the severity and the power of water and, in some places, fire, and just earth-shattering earth, wind, fire in terms of how it affects people.

So as I said last night, nature pulled the rug out from under people, literally and figuratively, in their communities and in their homes, in their schools and in their workplace, and then are we to say to them, Now Congress is going to pull the rug out from under you in terms of your hopes and expectations of meeting the needs?

Don't tell me that. We can't tell our constituents that. That would not rise to the level of civility for us to turn our backs and ignore their needs. It's just plain wrong.

So I'm hopeful that perhaps those making this decision have not been affected by--almost everyplace, whether we're talking about Katrina or California, with earthquakes, drought, flood, fire, you name it, we get it all. With the Northeast being hit, once, twice, within 2011 and 2012, with Missouri, with Iowa--I visited Iowa and saw the effect of the floods there. It was devastating. It's really hard, unless you see it, to understand the impact that it has.

The most compelling reason is the look in the eyes of people who ask, What are we going to do to help? How can we help them? And what is our answer? We're just too busy. It's not a priority.

That's just not civil.

So let's honor our responsibility, which is, again, the place where people place their trust. They ignore government. They don't like government. They don't want this; they don't want that. But in times like this, in time of emergency, is really when we prove our worth.

Let's prove our worth and urge the Speaker to bring this legislation to the floor and quickly deal with it while the Senate is still there, it can be sent to the President for his signature, and hope can flow from here, instead of a sense of wonderment, of ``Don't tell me that.'' Let us be able to tell people we feel their pain. We know what they're going through. We can never really know, but we can certainly appreciate their interest in our doing what is right for them.

So, again, I hope and pray. Because we pray for these people. We pray for them all the time. They're in our prayers. Some have lost loved ones. We pray for them. How much prayer would it take for this Congress to find it in their hearts and in their heads to do the right thing? Let's pray that we don't have to tell them that we weren't there for them.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his great leadership as our ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee and for bringing the clarity to our thinking on this important subject that we are dealing with this evening.

My colleagues, many of us this morning began the day with the Vice President of the United States coming to the Democratic Caucus and speaking to us about legislation that passed the Senate last night 89- 8. That is absolutely historic. It was legislation that

he helped negotiate, working with the Republican and Democratic leaders in the United States Senate.

It was a remarkable accomplishment because, as we all know, while we share the same goals, we sometimes have different paths to achieving them; and reconciling our differences was a monumental task, especially with the time growing short.

So we appreciate the leadership of the Vice President. We appreciate the leadership of the Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate, and we thank Speaker Boehner for bringing this legislation to the floor.

Hopefully, we can duplicate the strong bipartisan vote that the legislation received in the United States Senate. And why is that important?

It's important because the American people told us in the election they wanted us to work together. They have their differences too. They understand disagreement. They also understand compromise, and that is what this legislation represents.

I listened attentively to the previous speaker who said he was voting for the bill for what was not in it. That's an interesting approach. We can judge all of the legislation that we vote on for what is in it or vote against it for what is not in it. But at some point you strike a balance. You balance the equities.

Where do you come out in terms of making a choice?

I hope we will reflect the will and heed the call of the American people to work together and follow the lead of the Senate with strong bipartisan support. What do they want us to do? What are their priorities? They want us to create jobs. They want us to grow the economy. They want us to invest in education. They want us to reduce the deficit. They want us to strengthen the middle class. And that is what this legislation does. It does so in a way that is not complete but is an important first step.

We talked much about the gloom and doom of what would happen if we went over the cliff. Well, let's talk instead about what happens if we don't go over the cliff. And I believe that we will not, seeing the vote on the rule this evening. I believe that we will heed the American people and come together with a strong vote.

By voting for this legislation and passing it in a strong way we'll increase the confidence of consumers, of the markets, of businesses, of employers to hire more. We will extend unemployment insurance to people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. This is very, very important not only to those individuals, but to our economy, because this is money that is spent immediately injecting demand into the economy, creating jobs.

We'll extend permanent tax relief for the middle class--more than 98 percent of the American taxpayers, more than 97 percent of America's small businesses. We will support our middle class and strengthen it by supporting the child tax credits, tax credits for higher education, the American opportunity tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and the like.

Our distinguished ranking member went through some of the provisions, but it's important to see them in light of what they mean to America's working families. By voting for this agreement, we will demonstrate that we have listened to the American people and we have heeded their call, once again, to work together in a bipartisan way.

I want to salute President Obama. He campaigned on strengthening the middle class--I think all of us probably did--and this is one way for us to fulfill that promise. I don't know any piece of legislation that I've ever voted for that did everything that I thought it should do, but this is a very, very strong first step as we go into the new year. Let us send a message to the American people that, again, while this bill doesn't accomplish all that we need to do to grow the economy, reduce the deficit, and strengthen the middle class, it is a good way for us to have a happy start to a new year by taking this first step.

I hope that as, again, you balance the equities, the pros and cons of this legislation, that you will weigh heavily in favor of the message that it sends to the kitchen tables of America about the respect we have for them in meeting their needs, meeting their challenges, honoring their aspirations. This great middle class is the backbone of our democracy. Let us all be very patriotic tonight and support our middle class and support our democracy. Vote ``aye'' on this strong bipartisan legislation which passed 89-8 in the United States Senate. Let's step up to the plate to do that in the House of Representatives.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, if you've ever had a natural disaster affect your area or if you have ever visited a natural disaster, be it in California, my home State, or on the east coast or in the Midwest, whether Iowa and the floods or Missouri in recent times, and spoke to and listened to the pain in the voices and saw the fright in the eyes of the people affected, you would wonder why we are not bringing this legislation to the floor. It isn't about a natural disaster; it's about a human experience.

When I was a very new Member of Congress in the late eighties, we were affected in California by the Loma Prieta earthquake. I bring that up because the very next day after the earthquake, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Jamie Whitten, came to the floor of the House without anyone going to him or asking him. He went to the floor of the House and said to the people of California, Congress will honor our responsibility to the American people. We will put forth what meets the needs of the people. We need to work together to get that done. It was such a comfort.

These were just words. It was such a comfort to the people just to hear that and to know that a chairman would act upon that. And for the past few weeks, I know that our colleagues from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, some in Pennsylvania and other surrounding areas, have been assuring their constituents and the people of their areas that the Federal Government would be there for them. It is a social compact. It is the most important tie they have to us.

Again, if you could hear their personal stories you will know they'll never be made whole. The rug has been pulled out from under them in terms of their housing, their belongings, their pictures, their memories, the character of their neighborhoods. The rug has been pulled out, and now tonight, is this Congress, this House of Representatives, going to pull the rug out again from them legislatively?

Just as a reminder, the Senate of the United States, in a bipartisan fashion, passed a $60.4 billion assistance program for this natural disaster. It met the documented needs that were put forth by the people of the regions, by Governor Christie, by Governor Cuomo, by Governor Malloy, Governor Bloomberg, and so many others. So, documented need.

Again, it's not going to make everyone whole emotionally in their personal belongings and their memories and the rest, but it is a sign of respect that we cannot let what happened stand and that the resources will be there to try to return them to some sense of order and home and home life.

I don't know if any decision has been made. I hope not. I hope that as the leadership meets and considers a possible agenda for tomorrow, they would reconsider this because this goes deep into the hearts of people as they feel a sense of helplessness for something they had no responsibility for, a natural disaster.

Remember last year when we visited some of the places where homes were uprooted? It's earth, wind, and fire. When something like that happens, it's the wind, it's the water, it's the fire. It's every kind of thing assaulting people. Let's not be a part of that assault by putting doubts in their mind as to whether there is an appreciation for what they have lost, a respect for who they are, and honoring of our social compact that the government will be there when people are in need.

Again, I hearken back to Jamie Whitten. We never had a moment to fear that our needs would be met. Let's just make this night pass as if it never happened. Let's just replace the impression that is out there with the idea that tomorrow we will take up the Senate bill or take up the compromise that has been worked out to take this in two tranches. We cannot leave here doing nothing. That would be a disgrace.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Tonight, we come to the floor to pay tribute to two people--Barney Frank and John Olver--who, in many ways, could not be more different. They are the same in this respect: they have made important marks on the Congress of the United States. What is special about them is that they are so different. But in their shared values, in their effectiveness, their knowledge of the issues and their ability to persuade our colleagues to join them in a vote, they share that talent, especially those values representing Massachusetts in the Congress.

I had the privilege of serving with John Olver on the Appropriations Committee. So I saw firsthand and very close up his extraordinary mastery of the facts and the substance before us and his political astuteness to find a way to get the job done as a chairman and ranking member of an important subcommittee of Appropriations, Transportation, better known as THUD. He's a cardinal on that committee. That's what they call them. So as a cardinal, he commanded a great deal of respect from our colleagues, though that came easy to us because, as I say, we knew him well, his values and his judgment.

I want to point out one thing in particular, and that is he always had an interest in promoting or empowering women, whether it was in the Congress or in the country or in the world. There were some early conversations I had with him about human rights violations against women--against anyone--but his concern was deep and knowledgeable. In Congress, he was supportive of advancing women into positions of power here. I can speak of that firsthand. And also for women in the country. His wife is an academic, as he is. Having served in this Congress all this time, you can still be considered that--an intellectual. Again, he always knew of what he spoke. He brought great passion, judgment, and deliberativeness. He was very deliberative in getting a job done.

So it was an honor to call him ``colleague.'' He brought a special contribution to the Congress. Thank you, Congressman John Olver, for your leadership, for your friendship.

Again, sitting there next to Barney Frank, who is a phenomenon, a force of nature, somebody very special to all of us; unique in terms of his incredible intellect and, in some people's opinion, great humor-- his and mine, for two. To serve with him is really an experience. We learned from him not only every time he spoke, because he spoke with such wisdom and knowledge of the subject, but also we learned from him how to get his attention, hold it--but not too long--and move on with whatever idea we had in mind.

I had the occasion when I came to Congress the first time to call Barney and say, I'm so offended by what is going on on the floor. They're saying terrible things about people there who are in need, and the rhetoric went on and on and on and on.

When I got to the end of it, he said, Why are you calling me?

I said, Well, I want to know, what are we going to do about it?

He said, What are you going to do about it? And next time you call me, just get right to the point right from the start.

Well, that was very good advice. Now when I speak, I say, Barney, subject, problem, action needed, timing. And now we've gotten along great for decades. As one of my friends, John Burton, would say, he just wanted to know if you enjoyed the movie; he didn't want to know if you had butter on your popcorn. Just spare me the extra information that was not needed by him.

So I first basked in his aura at the Banking Committee, where he was a leader on the Housing Subcommittee. We had that in common, representing Boston and San Francisco, two cities

with the high cost of housing and knowing that we had to meet the needs of people who could not afford that high cost. So that respect for people's need to have the dignity of a home, no matter what their economic situation was, was, again, his commitment, as others have mentioned, to those at the lower place on the economic scale. So housing, affordability of it, the stock of it, the housing opportunities for people with HIV and AIDS, all of those kinds of issues. As you can imagine, he had the full view of it all in a way to get the job done.

Discrimination--everybody has talked about it this evening, but it's a very transformative thing to see Barney talk about discrimination, how it affected him, could have affected him in his life, and how he didn't want that risk to be taken by other young people who might have had some questions about their sexuality and the rest.

I remember when we were doing the hate crimes bill, fully inclusive hate crimes bill. It was really a very important bill that some people would have to take a political risk to vote for in their districts. When Barney came to the Caucus and spoke about it, he said, I'm the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. Important leaders of the financial community beat a path to my door. They want to hear what I think on subjects and tell me what they think. But I wasn't always the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. I was once a 16-year-old boy who had questions. I identify with those little boys now, those young people now, and that's why this was important. It was following the Matthew Shepard murder and all that that implied.

But for him to have the generosity of spirit to share his innermost thoughts about his own life and how that instructed him to act, it was almost a moral imperative for him to act. He had a special responsibility, because of his own personal experience, to act. And Members just responded to him. He spoke to them in a very personal way. They responded to him in a very personal way, and we passed something very, very important for our country and discrimination.

I remember the first time we passed the amendment to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Oh, my gosh, it was so exciting. It was so exciting. So I went up to Barney after the vote and I said, Barney, you're making history today.

He said, Yes, because we repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

I said, No.

Because we did this amendment on the Defense authorization bill?

I said, No, not because of that. That's history, yes, but we're making history because today you're going to vote for your first Defense authorization bill which has funding for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, in any event, knowing that we had a greater good, a separate issue to deal with and people were waiting to see how Congress would act, he of course made history by not only voting for an amendment to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but for the Defense authorization bill. Many like-minded and thinking and voting people who follow Barney's lead followed him down that path so that a bill would pass.

But it just goes over and over again. It's the consumer, protecting the taxpayer, protecting the consumer; the bill, Dodd-Frank, of such magnitude and scope, having such important implications for, again, protecting Main Street. He was masterful, not just because he was protecting the consumer, but because he understood the balance that was necessary in the legislation. That was really a mark of his leadership all along. He always respected the views of all stakeholders and any initiative that was put forward.

I see by the walking around of the dean of the Massachusetts delegation that time may be short, so I will reduce my remarks. But I did want to make sure people knew what an important force he was in providing affordable housing in our country, ending discrimination in every possible way--I just named two--in the fight against HIV and AIDS, in protecting the consumer and the taxpayer, and Dodd-Frank.

I know that any of us who were at his wedding and any of us who danced with him at his wedding know that that was a special privilege indeed not shared by many, but a compliment indeed.

He will be very missed. He will be missed for his intellect. Every time he spoke, we learned. He will be missed for his intellect. He will be missed for his parliamentary prowess. He was a master of parliamentary procedure and, I think, revelled in playing that role on the floor of the House.

Again, always values based, loved his district, proud of the State of Massachusetts, and, really, a national figure that will go down in history as one of the greats to have ever served in the House of Representatives.

Flamboyant--he's given me fashion advice, which is interesting getting fashion advice from Barney Frank. But I valued that. If he took the trouble or had the thought to make the point that I should give away a particular article of clothing because--not known for his sartorial splendor, nonetheless, if he made a point about it, he knew that there was some truth to whatever view he was expounding.

So with that, I'm honored to join the Massachusetts delegation to sing the praises of two great leaders as they're different in terms of style, but significant, both of them, in their contribution to our country: Congressman--otherwise known as Chairman--John Olver, the cardinal from the Appropriations Committee, and Chairman Barney Frank, it's an honor to serve with you, a privilege to call you friend. Thank you for your service to our country.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of his very important resolution--to condemn the acts of a lone gunman in Newtown, Connecticut, and to offer condolences to the families and members of the community.

I join him in the words of this resolution of saluting the courage of the teachers and administrators who gave their lives to save the children in their care and to thank the first responders who arrived on the scene to not only get survivors to safety but to end the succession of killings that were happening. Those first responders, Mr. Speaker, leave their homes every day knowing they're going to face danger, and they did that day as well; but in the face of it, they were heroic, as were the teachers and a counselor and the principal of the school.

This has all been made very clear to us by our colleagues: Congresswoman DeLauro for whom children and the prevention of violence has been a priority for her; of course, Congressman Murphy, Senator- elect Murphy, who represents this district with such distinction and such compassion; Congressman Courtney; Congressman John Larson; and Congressman Jim Himes. All of them spoke with such beauty at our service earlier, at the candlelight service. It was so moving to hear their connections to the people there. Their words were universal.

As the President said last night, this could have been happening any place. We can't tolerate this anymore, he said. These tragedies must end, and to end them we must change.

To change our Nation is already beginning--to reassess the options before us. Leaders from both parties have

stepped forward to put forth a series of steps on the table--from restoring the ban on assault weapons and assault magazines to strengthening the system of background checks. Again, we must address the challenge of mental health and keep weapons out of the hands of those in danger so as not to do harm to themselves and to others.

The voices of reason cannot be silent. Through administrative and legislative action, we must limit the proliferation of weapons ammunitions that have no other purpose than to kill citizens. Our colleagues through the course of the evening--and Congresswoman Maloney just before me--talked about legislation that we could pass immediately, that which the American people expect us to do, and that is to ban assault magazines. Of course, we want to ban assault weapons but also ban assault magazines. proliferation of weapons ammunitions that have no other purpose than to kill citizens. Our colleagues through the course of the evening--and Congresswoman Maloney just before me--talked about legislation that we could pass immediately, that which the American people expect us to do, and that is to ban assault magazines. Of course, we want to ban assault weapons but also ban assault magazines.

Why is it that somebody needs a magazine with 20 shots in it and could have two of those, and then 40 lives are at risk? Why is it? I'm not even asking that rhetorically. I'm asking it of those who are advocating that we shouldn't make this change. Haven't we crossed a threshold when children in school are not safe, when people who go to the theater in Aurora have someone come in and just kill them? I mean, just to use those words is very hard.

I don't know what words we could ever use to comfort the families of Newtown, Connecticut. As a mother and a grandmother, I find it--you said ``unfathomable,'' Congresswoman Maloney--unspeakable, unthinkable, just impossible to imagine how they go forward; but hopefully, God will give them the strength and the courage to do so.

It reminded me of a time before I was in Congress. I had the invitation of President Carter to visit Italy with a delegation--with Geraldine Ferraro, Italian American Members of Congress, Mario Cuomo, etc. We went there to deliver assistance from the United States Government after an earthquake in southern Italy. In one of the villages we visited, there was a rehearsal for first communion going on in the church, so just about every 7-year-old in the village was in church, practicing for first holy communion. When the earthquake hit, the roof came down, and every 7-year-old in the village was gone. It was impossible to console the people there. Not only had they individually lost their children, which is unthinkable, but the whole town had lost that class--their future, their new growth, their hopes, their babies.

So I really transform my thinking about how fragile life is. This was a natural disaster. What happened in Newtown, Connecticut, was a personal decision about someone whose judgment was thoroughly impaired. How could he do it? Because he had his own problems. How could he do this? Because he had the guns. He had the assault magazines to do it. That's how he could do it.

So let's at least try to mitigate, for circumstances that we may not be able to control entirely, the mental condition of someone, but at least limit the capacity to kill that that person has.

Just hearing the reaction to the expressions of sympathy to the families, to see the President read the names and hear the sobbing, this is something that will scar our country. If we can do something to prevent it from happening again to this extent, maybe we can't prevent it all from happening, but if we're going to take care of our people, we have to take care of them in many ways--address the issue of violence, address the issue of mental health, address the issue of where mental health and assault magazines comes together.

Some people are calling them high capacity or whatever. They're assault magazines. They make every weapon an assault weapon that they are compatible with, whether it's a pistol or rifle or whatever it is. So yes, we want to ban assault weapons, but these assault magazines make every weapon that they are compatible with an assault weapon.

It doesn't take a whole lot to figure out what we need to do immediately, and then maybe do more later. But wouldn't that be a comfort to these families to know that although they lost their babies, their little angels, their precious darlings gone to heaven, that something would come of it to prevent this from happening to others.

I always wondered in the Bible when Christ says:

Suffer little children, and come unto me. Suffer little

children, and come unto me.

I guess it was an interpretation of the word ``suffer,'' allow little children to come unto me. But Christ was calling children to Him. He used the word ``suffer.''

These children, their lives are gone. Their families are suffering. The other children in the school, in the neighborhood, children who just have heard about this, they're suffering, too; suffering about what it feels like to go to school and not be sure you're safe, staying up at night being sleepless in terms of being scared of what could happen.

Let's stop the suffering of our children, whether it's taking their lives, scaring them from going to school or keeping them up at night, giving them nightmares over their safety. These little children did suffer, and they did go on to heaven, a better place. It's the timing we have a problem with. Far too soon, far too many, for a reason that we can do something about.

So I commend my colleagues for how they came together, led by the community coming together, the community of Newtown and Sandy Hook, such an inspiration to the country, so strong, so courageous, so sad. Let's show them that not only do we offer words, we offer action, and that action will take the form of passing this legislation to ban assault magazines, to do so in a timely fashion, so that in a non- untimely fashion we won't lose any more lives.

Again, I want to commend the President for his beautiful words, mostly to the families last night and to the community, and the source of strength and inspiration he was. He challenged us to act. Let me just say it again: ``We can't tolerate this any more,'' he said. ``These tragedies must end; and to end them, we must change.''

Thank you, Mr. Murphy, for your leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague in speaking about how sad we are in the passing of Senator Daniel Inouye. His passing marks the end of an era but the beginning of a great future built on the legacy he brought to the Congress.

For the people of Hawaii and the country, he was a public servant from start to finish. He was a war hero, earning a Medal of Honor for his actions on the battlefields of World War II before his State was even admitted to the Union. And imagine, of Japanese American heritage; at a time when Japanese Americans were in camps, he was fighting for the freedom that they were not enjoying. He is a true patriot.

He was Hawaii's first Representative in the House, a source of great pride for all Members past and present that we could call him colleague.

Senator Inouye was a patriarch of Hawaii, and all Hawaiians will long remember his unyielding devotion to the economic vitality, progress, and success of his beloved home State.

Senator Inouye led a life of principle, passion, service, and sacrifice. He was the highest ranking Asian American in our country, and he was for a long time. His story--as an Asian American who lived the American Dream, a soldier who served with bravery and courage, an elected Representative who served with dignity--reflects the best of America. We only hope it is a comfort to his wife, Irene; his son, Ken, and the entire Inouye family; and his many, many friends that so many share in their grief at this sad time.

I want to praise him personally but also bring words of comfort to his family from my constituents in California who considered him a very, very special leader in our country.

Pelosi Statement on the Passing of Senator Daniel Inouye

Washington, D.C.--Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released

the following statement tonight on the passing of longtime

Hawaii Senator and the Senate's President Pro-Tempore Daniel

Inouye:

``Senator Daniel Inouye's passing marks the end of an era--

for the people of Hawaii, the country, and the United States

Senate. He was a public servant from start to finish. He was

a war hero--earning a Medal of Honor for his actions on the

battlefields of World War II before his state was even

admitted to the union. He was Hawaii's first Representative

in the House, a source of great pride to all Members, past

and present.

``Senator Inouye was a patriarch of Hawaii, and all

Hawaiians will long remember his unyielding devotion to the

economic vitality, progress, and success of his beloved home

state. He was the second-longest serving Senator in American

history, and his fellow Americans will long remember his

leadership in protecting our men and women in uniform,

strengthening our national security, reaching across the

aisle, and investing in a future of prosperity for all. By

his actions, he stood firm for the independence of the

Congress, the strength of our democracy, and the values of

the American people.

``Senator Inouye led a life of principle, passion, service,

and sacrifice. He was the highest ranking Asian American in

our country. His story--as an Asian American who lived the

American Dream, a soldier who served with bravery and

courage, an elected representative who served with dignity--

reflects the best of America. We only hope it is a comfort to

his wife Irene, his son Ken, and the entire Inouye family

that so many share in their grief at this sad time.''

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 44 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, December 18, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Thank you very much, Ranking Member.

Mr. Speaker, why did I sort of smell smoke when I heard this debate? It's reminiscent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. The American people are waiting for us to get the job done here, not to make a myriad of excuses about why stuff hasn't been done.

You're bringing up a rule that says we should have a suspension authority? Let's bring the middle-income tax cut up under suspension. I believe--and I am willing to take the chance--that this House would give over two-thirds of a vote to the middle-income tax cut.

Do I detect your smirk to mean that you don't think Republicans will vote for a middle-income tax cut, Mr. Sessions? Should I take it to mean that you will continue to hold middle-income tax cuts hostage, giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country?

The unfairness of it is appalling. The fact that it increases the deficit is disgraceful, and that it does not create jobs is a big mistake for us to make.

What we are asking for in this rule is to say ``no'' to the previous question so that we can take up a rule that says that we cannot leave here until we and unless we pass the middle-income tax cut, whatever else happens on a whole myriad of other issues that relate to the cliff. This matters, what happens here. It matters that we get the job done. It is relevant to the lives of the American people.

As we gather here--we, a country of great family tradition, of family values, of commitment to faith, faith in ourselves, our families and our God, our country--we are away from home while people are lighting a Menorah candle, a Chanukah candle, while people are trimming trees and the rest of that. Okay, we're here to do our job. But we hear from the Republican side that they might not be ready to relieve the pain and curiosity that American families have about whether we are going to get this done. They are going to put this off until the very last minute, as to whether the markets will have confidence on how to grow the economy and create jobs and remove all doubt--remove all doubt in the full faith and credit in the United States of America.

Every time you come to this floor, it's an existential question: Why are we here? We are here to do the people's work. Let's sit down, get it done, and move forward, instead of filling the agenda, however worthy some of those initiatives may be; instead of, not along with, passing a middle-income tax cut.

This is also reminiscent of a year ago. The President proposed, the Senate Democrats and Republicans voted for the payroll tax holiday. The Republicans in the House resisted, painted themselves into a corner until they had no choice. The issue had been made too hot for them to handle, and they finally had to come around to supporting the payroll tax holiday.

And here we are again.

One hundred percent of the American people will receive a tax cut when we pass the middle-income tax cut. The wealthiest people in our country will receive a tax cut up to their income of $250,000. We're asking them to pay a little bit more for what they make over

$250,000 a year to help reduce the deficit, to help grow the economy. Grow the economy. That growth is what is essential. If you want to reduce the deficit, create jobs.

So why aren't we doing that? Why are we just having all this subterfuge and this, that, and the other thing? Why are we being told to make a reservation on Christmas Eve and one on the day after Christmas to come back. Is there not an appreciation for the Jewish holidays, the Christmas holidays, Kwanzaa, all the other things that families come together around, bonding rituals important to the strength of our society? Do we not care about that? Well, the American people do. And they want to shop for it. They want to have family dinners and they want to exchange gifts, as is the tradition. But they really don't know if they're going to be able to pay the bill in January for their purchases in December.

The President has been very clear: Democrats have agreed to $1.6 trillion in cuts, much of it voted on--all of it voted on already either in the Budget Control Act or in other actions taken by this Congress in the course of this Congress. We have already taken a savings of over a trillion dollars, redirected savings in Medicare to prolong its life and to increase benefits. That would be $700 billion in the Affordable Care Act and now another $400 billion or such in the President's budget. We're committed to that.

Where are the tax cuts? Where are the tax cuts for the middle class that would inject demand into the economy and would therefore create jobs and create growth? Where are the revenues that we would get if we did that and then had the additional participation of those who make over $250,000? Where is the revenue that the Republicans are willing to bring to the table? All we've seen from them is a letter. All we've heard from them is that they don't want to tax the rich. All we know is that the public is very much on board with everyone in our country paying his or her fair share.

And so this rule today that says give us authority to have other bills brought to the floor, well, if one of those bills is the middle- income tax cut, we're happy with that. But if that isn't the plan, then I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question because that will then enable us to bring a rule to the floor which calls for bringing forth the middle-income tax cut before we leave here.

Again, we support the President and his proposal, which is fair, which reduces the deficit, which creates jobs, and which will work for the American people.

I thank you for yielding, Mr. Miller. I know that we have a time limitation so I will begin by associating myself with the remarks of Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, who spoke so beautifully and knowledgeably about our colleagues from California who are leaving.

I rise today to thank all my colleagues who are our friends and our

partners from the great State of California. The Members we honor in this Special Order demonstrate the extraordinary diversity of our great Golden State. They hale from northern and southern California, from the Bay Area to the greater Los Angeles area to San Diego. They bring California's wide range of interests and aspirations to the floor of the House every day. Working side by side with the entire California delegation, their service has strengthened the Golden State. The commitment of our departing Members has strengthened the Congress. Their achievements have advanced the character of our country. Each of these Members has brought a unique voice to the table. Yet each shares the same core values: a devotion to public service, a dedication to opportunity, a belief and a promise of America.

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey spent her career fighting to improve the education of our children, the economic security of their families, and the protection of our workers, as well as our coastline, as Congresswoman Eshoo mentioned. With her departure--I won't say retirement, because she is not a retiring person--the Bay Area loses a powerful advocate in Congress and the Nation loses a tireless progressive leader. It was, I think, Mr. Miller said 400 times that Lynn Woolsey came to the floor to speak against our involvement in the war in Iraq.

Thank you, Congresswoman Woolsey.

So it's about the patriotism of this Congress and of the participation as patriots of our colleagues from California, whether it's the education of our children, whether it's the health of our people, as demonstrated by Congressman Pete Stark. We all owe you, Pete Stark, a great debt of gratitude. He has been a fixture in the fight to build and strengthen the pillars of health and economic security for the American people. From his seat on the Ways and Means Committee, to the House floor, he always remained a fierce fighter for Medicare and a passionate advocate for the Affordable Care Act because he believes that health care is a right for all Americans, not a privilege just for the few.

His legacy will live on in stronger support for the well-being of our seniors, our families, and our middle class. I hope it is a source of pride--I know it is to your family--that so many of your colleagues respect you so much and honor your leadership and service here.

As has been mentioned, Congressman Filner left us. He is already the mayor of San Diego. He was a Freedom Rider, who fought for civil rights and equality. He was a Representative of San Diego, who never wavered in support of our veterans, and he served as the chair of that committee. We wish him well as mayor of San Diego.

Congresswoman Richardson has dedicated her time in Congress to rebuilding our infrastructure, advancing the dream of high-speed rail, securing our borders, and protecting our environment. We wish her well as she goes forward.

Congressman Berman--we go from B to W, Berman to Woolsey, and every wonderful thing in between. Congressman Berman's imprint can be found on legislation across the broad spectrum of issues before the House. Many of us knew him long before he came to Congress, knew of his work, working with the farmworkers, working in labor law to protect the rights of workers.

In two particular areas, his expertise is simply unsurpassed. He is a true expert on international relations, a past chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, ranking member now; a champion of aid to Israel; the fight against HIV/AIDS; and the toughest Iran sanctions in the history of our country. He is a senior member of the Judiciary Committee who, it is safe to say, understands intellectual property, understands its importance. It is even mentioned in our Constitution. He understands the challenges and the opportunities it presents. In every venue and every arena, he has been a proud advocate for Los Angeles and California, a cherished leader for the entire House.

Joe Baca is a lifelong public servant. He was a paratrooper in the U.S. Army's 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions. He served in the California State Legislature. In Congress, he made his mark in standing firm against harmful anti-immigrant measures and in leading the effort to expand food stamps and nutrition assistance for those who need it most. That is such a simple sentence, but it's fraught with meaning. He put a lot of work and leadership into the farm bill. Joe Baca came from humble beginnings, yet his accomplishments are truly significant.

The list goes on and on of our colleagues that Congresswoman Eshoo mentioned. For all of these Members, public service has been a calling, a cause, and a core facet of their character. California has been proud to have them as our Representatives in Congress. For those of us who served with them, it is an honor for each of us to call you ``colleague''; for some of us a very, very special honor to be considered your friend.

We all wish each of you much success in the years ahead. We look forward to continuing our work together on behalf of our great Golden State of California. Your service in Congress added to the luster of our Golden State.

Thank you, and congratulations.