ms. pelosi: thank you. madam speaker, member of congress who has been really a champion on this issue for a very long time, congresswoman lois capps of california, health professional in her own right. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for how long? ms. pelosi: one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. capps: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the leader for yielding and i rise today in opposition to the republican amendment that would undermine key provisions in the violence against women act re-authorization. and to urge strong support for the underlying senate bill which protects our young people on our school campuses. vawa is a vital program addressing violence women holisically through prevention programs, survivor supports, and provisions to hold perpetrators accountable. but also a symbol that relationship violence and sexual assault is real and that it's unacceptable. has been a symbol until this congress we can put aside our differen

ms. pelosi's mind, how am i supposed to react to that when i have somebody in front of me, whether it's barney frank or whoever, who i know is not telling the truth? >> blow the whistle on them. >> bill: so the righteous anger thing you subscribe to that? >> yeah. i think you have got to use it in moderation. >> bill: because i have never seen you do that? >> well, i'm a moderate temper recent if you are going to live in those areas where you can't go out of. >> bill: don't you think if mitt romney showed a little righteous anger in that campaign that he would be president right now? >> yeah, probably. >> just the fact that he was a demonized and attacked. >> don't you know debates, jacksonville, florida, newt gingrich was getting him for being the head of bain capitol. in the middle of the debate i'm not going to apologize. i have earned everything i have got. i didn't inherit it. i earned it jacksonville arena, no matter how were for, exploded. >> bill: why didn't romney and why don't more people show this righteous anger? why don't they? >> well, taps little dangerous in politics and people

ms. pelosi was with, at some point in their lives they have failed.a society, we have failed as a young people. the reason we're doing this special called education under arrest, that's exactly what's happening. there's a zero tolerance policy that we put in place after columbine was well-intentioned. the stuff that i used to get sent to the principle's office now lands you in front of a judge, like judge edwards with a criminal record. and that's no way for a society who says it cares about the way its children behave. the second thing of your show tonight is washington is bought and bossed by big munl. i could not agree with you more, piers. i've been so heartened by your aggressive issue on the assault weapons ban. these politicians have failed us. democrat and republican, they are spineless. harry reid was wrong to not bring this up for a vote. my grand dad put it this way. there's some fights ain't worth fighting even if you win. but there's other fights you have to fight even if you lose. this is a fight we should have fought. and if nominees to

ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the leader is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and giving me this opportunity to support his proposal, chris van hollen's proposal, as our ranking member on the budget committee, a proposal that is fair, responsible, and balanced. mr. van hollen has put forth an initiative that cuts spending responsibly, ends unnecessary wasteful tax breaks for special interest, and advances the buffet rule, ensuring that millionaires pay their fair share. i think it's really important to note as he did that this would be yet again another time we are coming to the floor asking for the republican leadership to allow a vote in an open congress and open to other ideas that block over and over again the mere consideration of mr. van hollen's proposal on the floor. instead today we are engaged in subterfuge. what can we do instead of doing what we really need to do and make it look as if we are doing something responsible? yes, ok, let's get the calculation. but let's reduce that deficit. let's reduce that d

ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for yield, i thank him for his tremendous, tremendous leadership, and giving us an opportunity on the house today to vote on a budget that's a reflection of american values, the values of work and jobs, of promoting them, a value of fairness, a value of advancing the success of america's families. i think we can all be the judge, we say a budget is a statement of our national values, what is important to us as a nation, a place where we allocate our resources. and this is in stark, absolute contrast to the republican budget that is on the floor today. contrast number one, jobs. the republican bill, the ryan republican budget, is a job killer. nearly two million jobs lost right out of the gate. nd more lost after that. the van hollen democratic substitute is a job creator. it invests and rebuilding the infrastructure, invest in innovation, energy, and education. speaking of infrastructure, society of civil engineers has given us a d in terms of the condition of the infrastructure in our country. so the need is there. this budget recognizes that need but it also

ms. pelosi: i thank congresswoman lowey for yielding me time in this debate. i listened to mr. frelinghuysen and i heard him say how awful sequestration would be and i completely concur with him on that i also heard him say this bill, nothing in this bill does anything on sequestration. well if it does nothing, why sit in the bill? is it to get votes on the republican side because there's not support on the republican side for the line of investments that were called for in the budget control act? if that's the case, then let's be clear about it and put it forth. but if it has nothing to do with sequestration, mr. frelinghuysen, why is it in the bill? is it a waste of time? of space? sit a topic of discussion that is fruitless because it has nothing to do with se west ration? but it's in there because it sends a very serious message. why are we in this place? we're in this place, in this chametpwhofere house of representatives, represent the american people. we recognize that a thriving middle class is the back bone of our democracy and that we are here to meet the needs of the

pelosi. today the pope francis met with the president of his home country, argentina. christina fer nan dez. msd she asked the pope to help selt argentina's dispute with the uk. >>> thank you for trusting ktvu channel 2 news. i'm gasia mikaelian, and our coverage continues with the 10:00 news and tonight we're following the controversy surrounding the anti-gay comments made by singer michelle at a show in san francisco. the fallout from her remarks here in the bay area and online. we're always here for you at ktvu.com. tmz is up next right here on tv 36.

ms. dina tight us of nevada. signed with best regards, nancy pelosi, democratic leader. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 113 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. caller: house calendar number 8, house resolution 113 -- the clerk: house calendar number ght, house resolution 113, resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 803, to reform and strengthen the workforce investment system of the nation to put americans back to work and make the united states more competitive in the 21st century. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall no

ms. windsor was in the second row watching things. there was a steady stream of supporters who came over to say hello to her, including nancy pelosi. law is being defended is something called a bipartisan legal advisory committee, which is five house members made up of republicans and democrats. bowling the republicans wanted to be involved in this lawsuit -- only the republicans wanted to be involved in this lawsuit, but there are some of them. nancy pelosi did not support the defense of doma. you begin your story that is available online and washington post.com. us additionality of the defense of marriage act. how the justices will ultimately decide -- take a stab at that? guest: i think you heard from the four liberal justices for a ,trong defense of gay rights justice kagan in particular. wastalked about how the law not a way to call timeout with debates going on about marriage , but really an effort to discriminate against same-sex couples. she read from a house report that talked about the moral disapproval of homosexuality. members ofe liberal the court very skeptical of this law on those grounds. then you had testis kennedy