Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Thank you. Madam Speaker, as we all know here, we have a special rule in the House. As I just referenced, it is clause 5(b) of rule XXI, which was put into the rules of the House to make it extraordinarily difficult for us to change tax rates. The reason we did that was out of a bipartisan consideration that we wanted to make sure that legislation we did here didn't have the effect, under the ruse of some other action, of changing effective tax rates for people. So this rule was put into place which said, if you're going to do that, you need to have a three-fifths majority. This bill that we are considering now is, by its action, changing people's effective tax rates. I'll try to be brief. It's just that I know many Members hadn't been tuned into the debate, and I want to explain this point. What the bill would do if it were to be passed would be to say, if someone had a marginal increase in their income that took them up into the next bracket, they would lose, not only the subsidy provided under the health care act to buy insurance, but in its entirety a $200 increase above the bracket would essentially put them into a different tax bracket. This is exactly what this rule was intended to prevent-- our taking an action that unwittingly changes where people's tax rates are without our actually having to stand up and do it. This rule puts a pretty strong level of test into place for us. It says we need a three-fifths majority. It is very difficult for the Chair to rule about a three-fifths, A, on a voice vote. Secondly, I want to be sure that if we go to what is certainly going to be a recorded vote that----

Mr. WEINER. First of all, I can be accused of a lot of things. Not speaking to the point of order isn't one of them. Madam Speaker, this point of order is specifically whether or not the rule that we have that says that the movement within tax brackets is subject to a higher order. Let me also make this argument in support of the point of order.

Mr. WEINER. The gentleman from Nebraska does not control the time. Point of order. I am on my feet to a point of order. I cannot be taken off my feet by anyone except the Chair. I would urge the respect of the gentleman.

Mr. WEINER. The reason this is so important and that we enforce it now is, just as we all have in our rules the annotations of when this rule has been bent and broken, we don't want at the beginning of this Congress one of the earliest actions we do to be to bend and break and leave in shatters the three-fifths requirement. You might believe it's a good thing to do. I just think there should be at least three-fifths of us, under the rules that we agreed upon, to raise the tax bracket, particularly since it's on middle class Americans. When you're making 80-some-odd thousand dollars a year and you make an extra $200 in income, they want to increase your tax bracket. If we're going to do that, let's make sure it's with a three- fifths majority. I urge that the point of order be upheld and that we have to vote on this by three-fifths.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, a democracy is not beautiful edifices or beautiful buildings or even words written on paper. A democracy's foundation is the people. Today we pay tribute to the retirement of Pat Kelly, someone who has really helped our democracy thrive. For 54 years, she has been one of the people that, anonymously and without much fanfare, has made sure that this democracy, whose very foundation is the longest continually maintained journal in the world, kept running. She did it as a proud daughter of Brooklyn, and she comes from a truly patriotic family. Her mother was a Member of Congress, as the Speaker and minority leader have pointed out. Her grandfather, William Kelly, was the Postmaster General of Brooklyn. I was proud to kind of make quasi- association with Pat when I was in the city council and I got some funds to fix up Kelly Playground, where so many of us enjoyed Brooklyn. You know, it really is true that many of us as Members of Congress blithely come through here. We cast our votes. We give our speeches. And it's easy for us to forget that this democracy is not about us. It's about the participation of citizenry and, of course, the hard work of so many people that make this institution so grand. Pat Kelly is such a person. She is an institution unto herself. She will be missed around here, but I can tell you she will not be forgotten. We will remember her for her charm, her smile, her grace, and the way with which she did her job. So to her family, the entire Kelly family, from all of the people from her home borough of Brooklyn, I want to say to her, congratulations on her retirement. She will be missed.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WEINER. The gentleman from New York is on a roll, so he'll ask for Weiner amendment 101.

Mr. WEINER. Thank you. Once again, I have no intention of taking the full measure of my time. This is an amendment that has been discussed on this floor many times. Unfortunately, it keeps coming back. We provide subsidies believe it or not----

Mr. WEINER. Thank you. I appreciate it. I'm going to be very brief. Just let me explain. This is an amendment that----

Mr. WEINER. Now I would say to the ranking member, I'm from Queens. I'm from New York City. So I thought mohair was a guy named Moe who had long hair. But I now know that it is a subsidy that dates back to World War I when our uniforms were made with mohair and there was a strategic imperative to make sure we had enough. We provide a subsidy. This has not been used in military uniforms now for about 55 years. Congressman Chaffetz and I have been agitating to try to eliminate this subsidy. There's still $1 million of funding going to about 12 farmers. No goats lost anything for the purpose of this picture. This is what a mohair looks like. I would urge my colleagues to end this wasteful subsidy. I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, first of all, show some respect. They're goats. Second of all, and if you are referring to a press conference that went awry that I had where I perhaps might have been bitten by a goat, I will say this: I believe that there is nothing wrong with these animals. We want them to have as much hair as they need. And if you want to give them a haircut, you should do it with your own money. It shouldn't be on the taxpayers' dime. So I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Wiener amendment.

Mr. WEINER. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, to the great relief, I'm sure, of all those assembled, I don't intend to take the full 5 minutes. The amendment I propose is one that I think that both sides of the aisle will rally around. It's very simple. It limits any aid in this bill going to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Why we would be providing any aid to Saudi Arabia at all has been an eternal mystery to me, given their propensity to exporting terrorists, given that they had exported 15 of the 19 homicide bombers on September 11, given that just in December when the WikiLeaks came out, it was learned in a quote from the Secretary of State, ``It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist funding as an important priority.'' Given that the Saudis have textbooks that say things like this in them. This is what they teach to their children: ``The Prophet said, The hour of judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. O Muslim. O Servant of God. There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.'' They have textbooks that also lash out at Christians. It is also important to note that in this House year after year, we've eliminated aid to the Saudis, only to have it come back. As you see on this chart, 2005--it was actually defeated that year--but every subsequent year, this House voted to ban aid to Saudi Arabia, and it comes rising back up like a Shakespearean specter. This language strikes the Presidential waiver, and says no more aid to Saudi Arabia. I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. WEINER. I simply say, with the greatest respect to Madam Chair, that we have spoken in this body repeatedly. The Saudis don't need our money. They've got plenty of their own money. It's the money that they use when they jack up gas prices and give us no help in trying to deal with them. It's the money that they use to export terrorism. They don't need any of our money. I understand there is a Presidential waiver. This may come as a surprise that my friends now want to give the President that authority to override Congress. I think we should take it away and say no aid to Saudi Arabia. I ask for a ``yes'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate under the rules in the UC that have been suggested that we divide the question so that Members of Congress can vote individually on whether to deny seniors coverage for the doughnut hole, to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, to deny small businesses from getting the tax benefit in this bill, all the different things--would it be appropriate to divide the question that way so that all of the benefits that Americans get they can see individually where my Republican friends stand on them?

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. WEINER. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chair, I agree with the gentleman. His amendment is clearly in order. But I know this because if this were legislating on this bill, that would mean that they can legislate. They controlled the House and the Senate and the Presidency; they were unable to legislate. We've been here for 8 weeks; they're unable to legislate. It is impossible to believe he is legislating in this bill. The point of order, if I may speak to it, suggests that the gentleman is legislating on an appropriations bill. I have watched those guys. They're incapable. There is no way this is legislating. So I believe the point of order should be struck down. It is impossible. After 8 weeks they haven't legislated. They had 8 years in the majority, and they didn't legislate. How can it possibly be, Mr. Chairman, that the point of order is correct? The gentlelady from Connecticut is rarely incorrect, but if you think they're legislating, impossible, almost metaphysically impossible for the gentleman to legislate. He doesn't know how. How can we possibly have the legislating in this bill? I think the gentleman is absolutely correct. Let us have this debate because if it is that moment, if lightning is striking, if it is chilly in hell, then maybe this is the moment we have been waiting for--the Republican majority is going to start legislating. Please, praise God, maybe this is the moment. So I think the gentleman is correct. He is not legislating in this bill because it is impossible for them to do so because they simply don't know how.

Mr. WEINER. Yes, I do.

Mr. WEINER. Madam Chair, I make a point of order that the gentleman's amendment is not in order because it results in a net reduction of revenues to the Treasury, in violation of the rules of the House and in violation of the rules stipulated in this bill. I explain that in the following way: As the gentleman surely knows, if his amendment is successful, the checks that are going to small businesses today, the tax breaks that they are getting to provide health care to their workers and the fact that there are no burdens on those small businesses means that they are going to have less money to spend, therefore less people they will be able to hire, a reduction in the amount of jobs, a reduction in the amount of revenue coming into the government, an increased burden on government services. In fact, the gentleman would say that anyone that would be writing the check to give back to citizens, they can't do it. Anyone taking that check, bringing it to them can't any longer do it. Anyone cashing that check would be in violation of the law. This amendment says that anyone getting a tax break under this bill would have to give it back. That would provide a net reduction in the amount of economic activity and job creation in this country, and therefore his amendment is out of order.

Mr. WEINER. I actually withdraw my point of order.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Madam Chair, I ask to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WEINER. The gentleman correctly points out some of the great things they're doing on behalf of the Department of Defense. Is the gentleman aware that the United States Institute of Peace gets, in addition to the money that I've identified here, $135 million in transfer from DOD, USAID and the State Department? Is the gentleman aware that they already get grants to do that work and that the money that I am seeking to cut is above and beyond that work? Is the gentleman aware of that?