Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, on the bill we're going to be considering shortly, the Presidential checkoff bill, there's a requirement under the rules that the amendments be printed in the Record. Is that Record available?

Mr. WEINER. Further inquiry, does the Speaker have any guidance for the House on when that Record might be available so we can read what we're going to be considering in a matter of minutes?

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, we are seeing today that after 75 or so hours of markup, hundreds of hours of hearings, 16 months of long debate, thousands upon thousands of meetings and town halls, the Republicans come to Washington and don't know what they want to do in health care yet. My constituents should understand, and the Speaker should understand, that this resolution says, go back and figure out what we want to do. Ladies and gentlemen, I would remind you that last year during the health care debate, the Republicans had a chance to offer an alternative. They didn't. Now they come to Washington and say, oh, let's have the committees go try to figure this all out. Yesterday they were the Party of No, and today they are the party of ``we don't know how to go.'' Who are these Republicans? After months and months and months of the national debate, you can go into any coffee shop, any church basement, just about any card game in this country and people have solid ideas about what they think about health care. But not the Republicans. They've got a resolution today that says, hey, committees, go try to figure this stuff out, it's complicated. And by the way, I don't know, Madam Speaker, if I read it correctly, but I don't think there are any deadlines. I don't think there are any deadlines. I will eat this rostrum if they come back with legislation that actually accomplishes the things that they just repealed yesterday. It's not going to happen. And this is the fundamental problem that I believe the majority party now has: they have the campaign slogans all down. I just heard the gentleman from Florida do one: ``unconstitutional.'' They have the campaign slogans locked. And I have to give them credit, they were successful with them. They came here, we're against, we're against, we're against. Well, now here it is. Unlike past Congresses that come in all geared up for the things they want to do, they're all geared up with a resolution saying, hey, go figure out what it is that we should do. The American people deserve a lot better than this. They deserve comprehensive health care that saves them money. That's what was repealed yesterday.

Mr. WEINER. I just want to respond to the distinguished chairman. The President did not say anything about this dastardly flawed bill. He said we should ``implement and improve.'' You say ``repeal and replace.'' You put that to a vote of the American people. Implement and improve is the way we build important legislation in this country.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. I thank the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee and my colleagues. You know, we're at about the halfway mark of this debate today. So I think it's time for us to kind of take a little review and also offer people listening at home kind of a viewer's guide to what they have heard and what they are likely to hear coming forward. There are basically three formations of the argument by the Republicans: First, they start by making stuff up. You kind of have to wonder if any of them actually read the bill: 137 new agencies--not true; new IRS agents--not true; death panels--not true; Members aren't covered--not true; no tort reform in it--not true. You know, I want to just advise people watching at home playing that now popular drinking game of you take a shot whenever the Republicans say something that's not true, please assign a designated driver. This is going to be a long afternoon. Then there are my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that are basically pursuing the ``we don't really mean it'' strategy. My good friend, the new chairman, Mr. Upton, started his remarks with this long litany of things they are going to do in the new bill. They're going to have coverage for preexisting conditions. They're going to have help for the doughnut hole. They're going to make sure there are incentives for small businesses to offer insurance. You know what they call that, my colleagues? They call that the bill they're repealing. It sounds very strange, but they want to repeal the bill but they still want to give it a big hug and embrace as if they support the things. And then, of course, there is the old fallback, and this is a particularly powerful one for the newer Members who are just joining us. It's kind of the bogyman strategy. You know, you pull those canards out of the sky: It's socialized medicine. Socialized medicine? Giving people incentives to go to private insurance companies? How is that socialized medicine? If that's the case, you all have socialized medicine. Now, it's worth noting that this is the same Republican Party who last year in their budget alternative and this year in their campaign manifesto said, We want to end the Medicare program as we know it. I mean, they don't talk about it much, but that's their philosophy. And we have a fundamental disagreement about it. They say there is going to be a government takeover of health care. Really? Who's taking over what health care plan? We're offering people tax incentives, small businesses tax incentives to go buy private insurance plans. You know, this was a proposal first made by Republicans that was adopted. We decided that that was the way to go. But stay tuned, ladies and gentlemen. This is the sign of a philosophical division. You have one side that stands up for patients and for citizens and for businesses and the other side which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the health insurance industry. But we've seen it. Whether they're making up things, whether they're creating bogymen, or whether they're saying, Well, no, we don't really mean it, this is a harbinger. And I would say to Americans watching at home, think what side you're on. If you're in love with insurance companies and want them to succeed and you don't care about anything else, by all means, this is your team. These are your guys. But if you believe that we need to make sure that people get health insurance, that they're not passing along their bills to the taxpayers each and every single day, that you believe in programs like Social Security and Medicare, these are your guys. This is kind of your half-time wrap-up for the debate that we're having here today. And those are the two sides. Ladies and gentlemen, pick your side. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. WEINER. I want my colleagues to understand, to say that you're not going to give them insurance, who do you think then pays for those uninsured? Who do you think then comes in and pays? It is your citizens in your towns, States, and cities. That's who pays for the uninsured and all of us who wind up footing the bill. You talk about responsibility. What about the responsibility not to pass the bill along to everyone else?

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. If I can just point out something, a lot of people look at this through the lens of their personal experience. Perhaps people watching this say, You know what, I have health insurance, I like my health insurance and I don't have a preexisting condition. Why should I really care about those who do? Well, I think you understand this, but I think many of our Republican colleagues don't. We wind up paying as citizens one way or the other. You know, we had awhile ago this H1N1 flu outbreak. Now, if someone has a choice and health insurance coverage that allows them to get a regular checkup and get doctor's screenings and get medications and given an idea what they should do to treat that, is it better or worse if they don't have insurance and they get on the bus in the morning and they wind up in a hospital emergency room and take you and your kids with them? The fact is it is not whether we are going to pay for health care; it is how we do it most efficiently. My Republican colleagues don't seem to understand this very basic idea that they talk about we should have choice. Nobody chooses to be born with cystic fibrosis. No one chooses to have a child that is born with asthma. I don't care how much you believe in the free market, when God strikes you with those afflictions and you need care, the only question then becomes how do we provide the care that is most efficient. Right now if people don't have insurance and they fall down or they get hit by a bus, God forbid, and they don't have the ability to pay, it is not as if there is some magical force out there that absorbs those costs. We wind up paying it. Everyone who has a health insurance policy winds up paying it. We in New York, and Congresswoman Clarke made the point about New York, we pay $8 billion in additional taxes. So it is just a matter of how we do it, and it comes down to a very simple idea: it is less expensive to give people a subsidy so they can buy insurance than it is to pay for them in emergency rooms. It is cheaper that way. So it is just a matter of how we choose to do it, and I think when you point out the fairness and the decency as Americans that we have when we provide the care, it is also doing a favor for everyone who has insurance, and every taxpayer in this country. So even if you don't buy into the idea that we should be altruistic, and we fundamentally believe, and I believe this is a fundamental difference between the parties, we don't believe you can get too far ahead as a country when you have so many, 30-some-odd million people without health insurance. We don't believe you fundamentally can. There are more people taking time off from work. Every single product we buy has more cost because of our health care failures. That is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. We believe those things out of a sense of compassion. But even if you just look at the economic bottom line, you should want to provide people with preventive care. It makes the most sense. It saves us money. It saves every American who has insurance money, and I want to thank you for pointing those things out.

Mr. WEINER. Will the gentlelady yield on that point?

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. I'm curious. Any of the Members who have spoken about the impact on small business, are any of them in favor of the tax incentive that is provided on small businesses to provide health care? Of course they are. Now, they might not know it's in the bill because to listen to the rhetoric--and a lot of them can be forgiven; they just came off the campaign trail. They were used to saying glib things like ``government takeover,'' ``job killing.'' But I would urge you to read the bill. Small businesses get a 30 to 50 percent tax incentive to provide health care for their workers. Small businesses do. And do you know what requirements they have to go along with that? None. No gaudy regulation, no government takeover. And just a word on this whole government takeover thing. I mean I love you guys, and I know you are caught up in the rhetoric of the campaign, this is tax breaks that are going to go to citizens to buy, wait for it, private insurance policies. Where is the government takeover in that? Now, some of us believe that Medicare, which of course you refer to as a government takeover of health care, and I am sure you are opposed to that as well, some of us believe that, frankly, the insurance companies aren't providing a lot of value-added here. But they are the beneficiaries of this plan. Small businesses today, if the Republicans are successful, will lose that tax incentive. Think that will create a lot of jobs, guys? It's not going to. And you think small businesses benefit when they don't provide health insurance and then people go to hospital emergency rooms to get their care? Who do you think pays that bill? The bill fairy? Your taxpayers. Your taxpayers in your States. Now, what's your solution? Well, they don't have a solution. We know what they are against. They are against health reform. We don't know what they are for. Welcome to the Republican majority. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, under the rules of the House, are the Members of Congress who are not duly sworn entitled to be paid for the days of service in which they were here and were not sworn in?

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WEINER. I reserve a point of order, Madam Speaker.

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

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I make a point of order that the consideration of this resolution is in violation of the House rules that we just passed in which a new section was created to rule XXI that required at least 3 days' notice to consider legislation, that it be posted on the Internet and we have a chance to review it. It is particularly important in this case since we're dealing with a constitutional issue, one that is without precedent, and I insist on the point of order.

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WEINER. Am I to understand that under the rules that were just passed, they are already exempting this resolution, which is of a question of the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, that it is already being waived, that that new rule requiring 3 days is already being waived?

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thought that the chairman was going to say that he was going to be brief. Well, he had no choice with this rule. It's a pretty short one. I just want to say in the brief 2 minutes that we have here that this is a pretty important issue that we are faced with. And I should say just at the outset that I have the greatest respect for my friend, Mr. Sessions. I consider him to be a friend. I hope to get to know Mr. Fitzpatrick as well and to call him a friend as well. But what we are dealing with today is perhaps the most basic test that we have of whether we're going to take legislation seriously. To the great credit of the maker of this resolution, which we just got, it stipulates right in the first couple of sections, we violated the Constitution on our very first day. The constitutional requirement for oath was violated. And I give you great credit for recognizing that in the resolution. Now you do say that it created nullities, which is, frankly, a way of saying we operated outside this document on the same day we were reading it. When Mr. Sessions and Mr. Fitzpatrick stood up in front of a television set and held their right hand up--not unlike about 2,000 of my constituents, I suspect--they were violating a very important part of these proceedings, and yet we have a grand total of 2 minutes on each side, Mr. Dreier, and to my colleagues, in which to debate how to fix that infirmity. Mr. Sessions presided over the Rules Committee during a large portion in which he was not even a duly sworn Member of the United States Congress. Yet we are doing nothing to go back and see would that participation influence proceedings at all. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution, not because Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Sessions are not Members of Congress, they clearly are and I congratulate them, but because for the first time in American history, the first time in the history of this body, we are going to pass a fix of a constitutional infirmity with--wait for it--4 minutes of debate when we didn't have the bill until just now. I strongly urge my colleagues to think about the precedent this sets. I ask the consent of the chairman for an additional 1 minute so we can have an understanding.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, what is the current whole number of Members of the House?

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

Mr. WEINER. Can the Speaker certify that all 435 Members have been correctly and duly sworn and have taken the oath of office as required under the Constitution?

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.