Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Ladies and gentlemen, later this week, we are going to be considering the Medicare Elimination and Middle Class Tax Increase Act of 2011. We've heard it called the ``Ryan bill,'' but that's what it does. First, it does some things that I'm sure are very popular in America. It says let's eliminate the Medicare program. Let's say to senior citizens, You know what? We're going to give you a voucher, and you go out and shop for health care--and good luck finding it. That's one proposal. And then it says, let's take $750 billion of Medicaid expenses and shift them to the States so that the States have to raise taxes and localities have to raise taxes. This is some new interesting idea? It was said by the previous speaker that Democrats haven't come forward with any ideas. Yeah, we came up with the idea of Medicare to provide health care for seniors and Social Security to provide a safety net for seniors in their advancing years. These are the programs that we care about and are going to fight for. This week on the House floor, Republicans are going to say we're against Medicare. They want to eliminate it as it stands. Now, isn't it ironic? They spent all last year criticizing the health care act because it harmed Medicare, now suddenly they want to eliminate it. Hypocrisy.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Max Pomeranc. Mr. Pomeranc has been a member of my staff since 2007. For almost four years, he has served the United States Congress and the people of Brooklyn and Queens with honor and distinction. Max is a native New Yorker who brought the characteristics associated with being a New Yorker to work with him every day: hard-nosed determination, a keen sense of justice and fairness, and a strong willed refusal to allow any of my constituents to get anything less than fierce advocacy and unyielding assistance from my office. Over his many years of service, Mr. Pomeranc helped secure millions of dollars for the communities I represent. He worked with all levels of government to get the 9th district in New York as much funding as possible. Max oversaw the operations in my office that protected the elderly and disabled, give a voice in government to the disenfranchised, and honored the sense among citizens that elected officials are here to help people, first and foremost. Max steered my district ship through many battles. There was an historic presidential election, budget battles with an all-time feverish pitch, and the passing of the most sweeping health care reform legislation since the creation of Medicare. This chapter of Max's storied career gives way to his next adventure, and I rise to give him due recognition. He will be missed by his colleagues, my constituents, and by me.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. My friends, I think one of the truly edifying experiences we had in the opening days of Congress was that we read the Constitution, and I think one of us had the great good fortune to read article I, section 7: ``Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States.'' That's how a bill becomes a law. Now, this is how Eric Cantor on 3/30/2011 said a bill becomes a law: ``The Senate's gotta''--this is just a transcription. I didn't do that. I just assume it's a Southern thing. ``The Senate's gotta act prior to the expiration of the CR. If it does not act,'' meaning if the Senate does not do something, ``H.R. 1 becomes the law of the land.'' That's not true. That's not constitutional. That's not fitting of this body. Now, it is, however, consistent with how the majority party has been governing around here. They've passed rules that they have ignored. For example, on January 5, they had members of their caucus take the oath in front of a television set. On February 9, they failed to provide constitutional authority for a bill despite that it was one of their rules. On March 13, they failed to get a three-fifths majority for passage of a bill that raised tax rates, despite the fact that it was part of the rules. On March 17, they failed to make a bill available within 72 hours, despite the fact that it was part of the rules. And just March 30, they failed to include an offset for a new government program. The rules are not a big thing for them to follow because this is why it's hard. It's a big book. So I brought you this, ``House Mouse, Senate Mouse,'' which is sold in the gift shop to teach children how to understand the Constitution, and permit me to read: ``It's the floor of each Chamber of the Senate and House where each Senator and each Congress mouse gets to vote on the bill, and if enough do, if enough do, this President signs it if he likes to.'' Well, the Senate mice haven't passed this yet. Perhaps if these were the rules that the Republicans had to follow--it's a much thinner book and it rhymes--maybe you'd get it right, but this is not the Constitution. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WEINER. The rule exists, but we don't need to follow it. I withdraw my parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WEINER. Is it not the rules of the House that, under clause 10(a) of rule XXI, what the Speaker articulated in this sentence is in fact the rule, that if you have money that needs to be offset, it has to be offset in the same bill? And it is further not the case that in this bill, it has been stipulated on both sides that this expense of $300 million over 5 years is not paid for. Is that or is that not the rule of the House?

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against consideration of this bill because the legislation violates clause 10 of rule XXI which states that it is not in order to consider a bill if it has the effect of increasing spending for the current year and a 5-year window. CBO estimates this bill will cost $500 million over 5 years without an offset in the bill. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, ``We are setting PAYGO aside and instituting Cut-As-You-Go, which means if there is any spending called for in any new way or authorization, that there has to be some cutting somewhere.'' Eric Cantor. Further, the Speaker said: ``Very simply under the Cut-Go rule, if it is your intention to create a new government program, you must also terminate or reduce spending on an existing government program of equal or greater size--in the same bill.'' I would point out, Mr. Speaker, as we already know, on January 5, there was a violation of the rules where Members failed to take the oath when they were not in the room. On February 9: Failed to offer a proper constitutionality statement with legislation that was offered. On March 3: Failed to require a three-fifths majority for the passage of a bill that raised tax rates. On March 17, we failed to make legislation available for 72 hours. And now we are failing to include an offset for a new government program required under these rules under Cut-Go. In order for these rules to be taken seriously, we can't simply say, Because it's a favorite program of the Speaker, we're going to waive the rules. The rules are there for a reason. We voted on those rules, and they were made an important part of the change of hands in this House. When you have statements like this by the Speaker, they should be taken seriously. There is no argument that the funds in this bill are simply not paid for, and I insist on my point of order.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. WEINER. It's a simple question: Doesn't the rule stipulated here exist? And is the only reason we're not following it is that I didn't get to the floor in time?

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Chief Culinary Specialist (Surface Warfare) Oscar Flores in honor of his retirement from the United States Navy. Chief Culinary Specialist Oscar Flores has provided 23 years of faithful and devoted service to the United States Navy and to the citizens of our country. Since 1988, Chief Culinary Specialist Flores has been dedicated to the U.S. Navy and their mission to protect the United States and her citizens. He started as a Mess Management Specialist, and as Chief Culinary Specialist Flores always went above and beyond the line of duty, he rose through the ranks to Chief Petty Officer. With his talents and exceptional culinary skills, Chief Culinary Specialist Flores has provided outstanding service to the Clinton family. His energy and dedication have been a tribute to the first family and his country. Additionally, Chief Culinary Specialist Flores earned the dignified title of the Commanding Officer's Chef while aboard the USS Fort Fisher (LSD 40) as Galley Watch Captain and aboard the USS Essex (LHD 2) as Wardroom Supervisor. On shore, Chief Culinary Specialist Flores has proven his loyal leadership as Petty Officer in charge of BEQ/BOQ Operations at Naval Submarine Base Point Loma, CA. I also recognize Chief Culinary Specialist Flores for his many decorations and awards including the Presidential Service Badge, Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, Joint Meritorious Unit Award, and numerous individual, unit and campaign ribbons. Chief Culinary Specialist Flores represents the best of what our Nation has to offer and has demonstrated exemplary and laudable service while on the Presidential Food Service Staff at the White House as Chef and Personal Enlisted Aide to the President. Chief Culinary Specialist Flores' tireless work ethic will be missed by the U.S. Navy, though his strong commitment continues as a Personal Chef, Personal Aide, and Director of Operations at the Clinton Residence. I am honored to congratulate Chief Culinary Specialist Flores on the occasion of his retirement and further extend my gratitude for his many faithful years of service to the United States Navy.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Crisis averted, ladies and gentlemen. What a relief. What a relief. I'm glad we got the economy back going. I'm glad we've secured our nuclear power plants. I'm so glad that Americans are back to work. We finally found out our problem. We discovered a target that we can all agree upon. It's these guys. This is the problem. It's Click and Clack, the Tappet brothers. We're finally getting rid of them. Thank God we solved this problem for the country. Now, let's look at the record here. For one, they talk in that Boston accent. ``Cah'' talk. It's a ``car.'' I need to call Congressman Capuano whenever they're on the air. Secondly, they talk about master cylinders and slave cylinders. It's kinky. I am glad my Republican friends are finally getting to the bottom of this. And then with all the giggling and snorting that they do every weekend on their show, it's got to be some kind of a code. They're clearly talking to the Russians or the Chinese or something with all that giggling and snorting. It is fine. I'm so relieved that we had this emergency session, that we waived the rules of the House that require 72 hours so we finally get these guys off my radio. Click and Clack, the Tappet brothers on ``Car Talk.'' I know it. Because these guys, clearly they're political. Well, I don't know if they're political. They make no sense about most of what they say. But you know what? I'm glad we're finally not going to have to listen to them. I'm glad the Republican Party finally said enough of Click and Clack, the Tappet brothers. That clearly was what the American people said in campaign 2010. Clearly it's in their contract with America or something; right? Get rid of Click and Clack? It's about time, I have to say, because the last thing we want is informative solutions to how we fix our cars and the Car Talk Puzzler. And think about all the people we're finally going to put out of work, you know, their Customer Care Rep, Heywood Yabuzzoff--I'll tell you how to spell this later, I say to the stenographer--and the Director of Ethics, Youlyin Sack, all of these guys that finally are going to be taken off the public payroll. The Republican Party, no one can say they're not in touch. They get it. They understand where the American people are. The American people are not concerned about jobs or the economy or what's going on around the world. They're staring at their radio saying, Get rid of Click and Clack. Finally my Republican friends are doing it. Kudos to you.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. For the clarity of the House, did this bill age for 72 hours, ``yes'' or ``no''?

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, as you know, we are about to consider the rule. Members, if they are to vote on and understand it, need to know that they are waiving the rule. This is the statement of the Speaker of the House: ``I will not bring a bill to the floor that hasn't been posted online for at least 72 hours.'' Would the Speaker please clarify for the body that the 72-hour rule is either being waived or does not exist.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the consideration of this bill because it violates rule XXI, clause 11, which requires a 72-hour layover of the bill and for it to be electronically noticed in order for it to be considered by this House. This bill did not lay over for 72 hours. It was noticed at 1:42 p.m. on Tuesday; therefore, it has to wait until 1:42 on Friday to be in compliance with the rules of the House.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Madam Chair, point of order.

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, Members should have an opportunity to be heard on the point of order. Just because one person you might feel didn't address it doesn't mean all of us should be prejudiced in our opportunity to speak.

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, the voice vote we just took violates clause 5(b) of rule XXI, and this vote shall be taken with a three- fifths required for passage.

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I do.

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, may I be heard further on the gentleman from Michigan's point?

Mr. WEINER. Let me just say very briefly, the gentleman from Michigan is correct. We don't directly do what is described in the rule, but the effect is that it is indisputable that someone who is in one tax bracket after this bill will move into another one. The purpose of this rule, and clearer from the annotations--we're trying to look at the purpose of this rule, and the reason we have the Speaker interpreting the rule is to prevent that from happening. And if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. You're going to see it happening a lot this term.

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order.