Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. It is my pleasure to stand up in support of this resolution in support of Women's History Month. It is important to note that here, in 2010, that insurance companies very often charge women exponentially more money to get health insurance than they do for men. Now why do they do that? Because health insurance companies have been empowered by the present system--not because they're venal or bad--but because it's their job, their business model, to take in as much money as they can and to give as little service as they can. That's their business model. It's their business model to try not to provide any insurance at all for the toughest to ensure, so they drop people who have any preexisting conditions or start to rack up needs, meaning people who get sick. They don't cover anyone who's over 65, because we, the Federal Government, decided 44 years ago, over the objections of many of my Republican friends, to create the Medicare system. But let's talk for a moment about this notion of jobs for women, jobs for men, jobs for the next generation. The idea that we can continue this way, putting 20 percent of every single dollar we produce in this country into health care is why, my friends, our wages have been stagnant for the last 8 years. Because when an employer gets any additional money, it's got to go into keeping up with the high cost of health care. And you don't have to look in a book. You can go look in Michigan. Take a look at the difference, with the exact same union contract, to build a Chevy Impala on the Michigan side of the Canadian border or on the Canadian side of the Michigan border. The same exact automobile. General Motors did what any sound-minded company might do. They said, Wait a minute. I'm paying an extra $7.25 per hour per worker on the New York side of the border, on the Michigan side of the Canadian border. I'm going to stop doing that and move them overseas. We simply are less competitive with the status quo in every instance except one: the health insurance industry. They're doing well. They're doing remarkably well. And you know what? I am at a place, as I think the previous speaker said, where I would have preferred to say, You know what? Let's take the Medicare system. People understand it. Let's extend it to people 55. Let's get younger people on. Let's try to do this right. Let's take an organization that has an overhead rate of 1.05 percent--1.05 percent--and let's take away the ones that have 30 percent, 25 percent. That's what I would have done. Now my Republican friends have their own proposal. Let me tell you exactly what it is. It says that anyone over the age of 55, who's not 55 today, will not have Medicare the way it's structured today. They will essentially get some type of a voucher and say, Good luck. You will not have Social Security under the Republican plan because they would invest it in the stock market. Yeah. It's not a joke. This is their proposal--not from 10 years ago. This is the ranking minority member. They don't talk about it much, God bless them. But that's their proposal. There's an expression down South--and I'm not very far south in Brooklyn--but it says that it takes a great man or a great woman to build a barn, but any jackass can kick it down. What that means is, yeah, writing bills is complicated. To say it was rushed, I've got to tell you, a year, plus 2 years talking about it in campaign, plus 30 years festering as a problem, and now I heard one of my colleagues say, Wait until Thursday. Have you got a Final Four you're watching or what? Honestly. Wait until Thursday. Twenty percent of the economy. I'm busy. Wait until Thursday. I want to see if Siena makes two rounds. Let's wait until Thursday. Sayonara. Look, the minority party had an opportunity for 8 years and the trend went like this for health insurance. Costs went like this for incomes. That's what happened. We're not going to let it happen anymore. So there was a decision made that had to be made: Are you going to try to solve the problem, or are you going to stand up for the insurance industry? On this side, we chose to try to solve the problem. It ain't perfect, but it sure beats what we're hearing over there.

Mr. WEINER. I would ask the American people to listen to the following exchange: Will the gentleman from New Jersey kindly inform the House the source of the memo that he just read from? That silence that you hear is the gentleman from New Jersey read from a fake memo, a fraudulent memo. He has been zoomed. It wouldn't be the first time, but that is the case. That memo that he just read from has no source. He will not return to the microphone and tell us what it was because he took something that was created by opponents of health care, and there are a lot of them, mostly paid for by the health insurance industry, and came to the rostrum with a fake document.

Mr. WEINER. I don't yield for that purpose.

Mr. WEINER. The fact of the matter is there is an enormous amount of money being socked in by the health insurance industry. They are doing everything. They are creating ads. They are making contributions. But what they are also doing is producing fake memos that say, ``from the Democrats,'' with something crossed out on top. But the fact remains here that there is no reluctance to talk about the real CBO score: $1.2 trillion of savings for the American people. That is the fact. That is nothing we are hiding from.

Mr. WEINER. I will yield if only for the purpose of telling the source of the document.

Mr. WEINER. I asked the gentleman a direct question. Ladies and gentlemen----

Mr. WEINER. Ladies and gentlemen, what you saw just now is a microcosm for this debate, a real piece of legislation that for a year we have been working on and a fake document that they won't even give the source for. We are going past that, and we are going to wait until Thursday, I say to my colleague, or Wednesday. We are going to do it when the bill is ready to be passed because we have debated this thing for a long time. We are here to solve the problems of the American people, not quote from fake memos.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. I thank you very much, and I thank the ranking member for his informed remarks about this bill. I want to thank also the chairman of our full committee for reaching it to this point. You know, the fact is that the various States have different levels of tax on their tobacco products. Some States are very high. My State of New York is among the highest. Our city puts an additional tax. It is one of the prerogatives of the different States-- some have chosen to tax more; some have chosen to tax less. But the fact is that there is an enormous economy around avoiding that tax, essentially violating the law. There are Internet tobacco sites that exist with their sole purpose apparently being to deliver tobacco to people outside the realm of taxation. That's a problem. It's a problem not just because it makes it impossible for States to collect taxes that they've levied, but it's also a problem because the sale of Internet tobacco encourages underage smoking. It also makes it very easy for anyone who wants to commit illicit acts. When the Government Accounting Office took a look at a smuggling ring that they discovered in the early part of this century, they found that Hezbollah, the international terrorist organization, was using this difference in taxes to fund their illicit activities. Here's how it worked: They would purchase tobacco at a low tax rate in North Carolina; they would ship it to a higher tax State in Michigan; and the difference that they'd save by selling the cheaper tobacco in Michigan would produce millions of dollars. But it is not just international terrorist organizations and not just underage smokers that are using this gap in the laws to undermine our interstate commerce. It is also just everyday citizens who have become scofflaws by using Internet tobacco sales. So how does this PACT Act, which was sponsored by Senator Kohl and is sponsored by my Republican friends in the House and passed by a broad margin when we earlier considered this, how does this solve the problem? Well, it does it in a couple of ways. One, it is already by agreement that UPS, FedEx, DHL, the major common carriers have said, You know what? We think it's wrong to be facilitating this by making deliveries for Internet tobacco companies, so we're not going to do it. They've agreed to it. It's in place in all 50 States. There's only one common carrier that today still delivers tobacco through the mail--the United States Postal Service. They came to us and said, Congress, if you really want us not to mail this, you've got to define what a nonmailable material is, and you've got to add that to the list. That's what the PACT Act does. It says that you can no longer mail tobacco through the mail once this becomes law. So it's going to make it very, very difficult, if not impossible, for Internet tobacco sales to continue. A second thing that it does is that transaction that I described, where you buy something cheaply and don't pay taxes on it or pay a lower tax than you're supposed to in your State, is already a violation of the law. But effectively, those violations are never prosecuted because under the Jenkins Act, which is the structure of the law that enforces this, it's only a misdemeanor. Well, that's going to change. In this bill, it's going to become a felony. If you think you're going to skirt the law by driving to your neighborhood Indian reservation, buying boxes and boxes or cases and cases of cigarettes, not paying taxes on it, well, now that's a violation of the Jenkins Act that rises to a felony. So it might make sense for the U.S. Attorney or for an attorney general to say, You know what? We're going to do a stakeout here, and if we find untaxed tobacco is being sold or undertaxed tobacco is being sold, we're going to crack down on it. A third thing that it does is it increases the enforcement of the act that is supposed to happen. When you buy something in a low tax State, you're supposed to pay the taxes in your home State. So this is going to increase the reporting requirements. Anyone that sells these products is going to have to report back to your home State on the taxes that are owed. Now, what is this going to mean? In addition to cutting down on underage smoking, this is going to mean that States and localities are going to find that they're going to start collecting the taxes they're supposed to. And again, we have people who support lower tobacco taxes on this bill, people who support higher tobacco taxes on this bill. This is not an issue of whether you think there should or should not be tobacco taxes. I think there is bipartisan agreement that there is, within the right of the 50 States, the ability to levy this taxes, and the sovereignty of those 50 States depend on them being able to collect it. What this is going to be able to do now is we are going to make sure that, in the context of this debate, that these tobacco taxes get collected. No one knows exactly what was being evaded here, but there was one estimate that said as much as $1 billion in New York State alone is being evaded, and we are finally going to be able to get control of this problem. All 51 State attorneys general have supported the PACT Act, the National Association of Convenience Stores, the American Wholesalers Association. Even the major tobacco companies who understand that there is a regime that has been set up in the 50 States, they want it to be followed, too. So companies like Altria and Lorillard are saying, You know what? While there are a lot of hot debates about tobacco use in this country, there should not be a hot debate about whether or not we enforce the laws of the 50 States. I also want to thank my Republican colleagues here. Mr. Smith and his colleagues and a bipartisan coalition said, You know what? You're going to be tough on crime; we're going to be tough on this crime as well, and have every step of the way made suggestions that have improved this legislation. And also--this is the part that is the toughest to say--I want to thank my colleagues in the Senate. There have been 290 times that we have sent legislation in their direction, and while I think it was Benjamin Franklin who called the Senate ``the cooling saucer of our democracy,'' they've been more akin to a meat locker in recent months. And I want to commend Senator Kohl for figuring out a way to extract something from that frigid environment. Hopefully, we'll be getting this to the President's desk. This is an important thing, what we're doing here. This is going to allow States to collect the revenue they're supposed to have. Every antismoking organization that's concerned about underage smoking has been active in making this happen--27 public health groups, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association. I think all of us who are concerned about keeping tobacco out of the hands of children recognize that this giant gap in our law that allows them to get it on the Internet without any age verification, which is another element of this bill that's going to become law, has a stake in making this bill a reality. I want to thank Mr. Cohen for so deftly managing this bill. I would like to thank members of the Democratic and Republican staff of the Judiciary Committee and my staff, who worked tirelessly on this legislation. In particular, I would like to thank Perry Apelbaum, Ted Kalo and Danielle Brown on the House Judiciary Committee, Jesselyn McCurdy, Kimani Little and Caroline Lynch with the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, Marni Karlin on the Senate Judiciary Committee, John Mautz with Congressman Coble's staff and Joe Dunn on my staff. I would also like to thank Artie Katz, Lenny Schwartz and Steve Rosenthal with the New York Association of Wholesale Marketers, John Hoel and Sarah Knakmuhs with Altria, Eric Lindblom and Brian Hickey with the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Anne Holloway with the American Wholesale Marketers Association, Blair Tinkle with the National Association of Attorneys General, Lyle Beckwith with the National Association of Convenience Stores and Laurie McKay with Dickstein Shapiro. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the 150th anniversary of the historic Saint Margaret Roman Catholic Church in Middle Village, New York. Throughout their history, Saint Margaret's has withstood the test of time by wholeheartedly committing themselves to education, faith and service. Ever since its inception, the parish has continuously strived to reach out and respond to the changing needs of the community. On March 18, 1860 Father Goetz broke ground on the first Catholic Church in Middle Village. Much of the original parishioners were farmers concerned for their crops and animals. To its parishioners, Saint Margaret's acted as the protector of those animals against life threatening epidemics and the crops against harvests that brought harsh weather. During the civil war, Father Goetz and numerous other priests from Saint Margaret's made regular visits to rebel prisons, which housed prisoners captured by Union soldiers. A small frame school was built to house 20 pupils in 1890. Now that school holds 600 pupils with over 50,000 graduates. Their mission is comprised of community, charity and goodwill, in which they are tenaciously dedicated to pursuing. Throughout the years, Saint Margaret's Church has worked with some of the most extraordinary pastors and presiders in the country, and has developed a cadre of priests who have nurtured and challenged this ministry to continue to grow in purpose and commitment. St. Margaret's School works at building a family spirit while providing an education where excellence is encouraged and Christian values permeate. They have dedicated their existence to these values and their ongoing service to the community, serving in such things as Ministry to the Homebound and their food pantry for the less fortunate. I am pleased to note the 150th anniversary of Saint Margaret's Roman Catholic Church.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. You know, you got to love these Republicans. I mean, you guys have chutzpah. The Republican Party is . . . That is the fact. They say that, well, this isn't going to do enough, but when we propose an alternative to provide competition, they are against it. They say that, well, we want to strengthen State insurance commissioners, and they will do the job. But when we did that in our national health care bill, they said we are against it. They said they want to have competition, and when we proposed requiring competition, the Republicans are against it. They are . . . That is the fact.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for the purpose of amending my remarks.

Mr. WEINER. I would request unanimous consent to substitute other words.

Mr. WEINER. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my words.

Mr. WEINER. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WEINER. Make no mistake about it: . . .

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the offending comments.

Mr. WEINER. I thank you very much. But the point is very simple. There are inequities in the present way we distribute insurance, the way we distribute health care. There are winners, and there are losers. The winners are the insurance industry. And our efforts to reel in the insurance profits, not just because they shouldn't make profits-- they're doing what they're supposed to. But what they're doing is driving up taxes, they're driving our economy into the ground, and we need competition and choice to deal with that. That's what this legislation does, and the motion to recommit undermines it. I've heard a couple of times today, well, we have an effort for bipartisanship here. No, there is not bipartisanship on this fundamental issue; and that is, the people who sit on this side, at the risk of offending anyone, generally support the idea of standing up for the American people in their daily battles against high insurance. And the people, generally speaking, who sit on this side of the Chamber, and specifically speaking as well, in a lot of cases, simply won't permit that to happen and haven't for a generation. That's going to end now. That is going to end because we are going to have competition. We are going to make sure that there are regulations, and we're going to make sure that the American people aren't gouged. That's what the American people stand for. And time and time again people say, well, I don't really want to undermine this bill, I just want to weaken it to the point that it's meaningless. And then I've heard my good friend from Texas say, well, this doesn't do anything. But every single time we've tried to do something, like a tiny sliver of competition called the public option, they've said, no; we can't withstand competition. We can't have that. Enough of the phoniness. We are going to solve this problem because for years our Republican friends have been unable to and unwilling to. Deal with it.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues the remarks recently made by Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and head of the Presidential delegation that visited Auschwitz on the 65th anniversary of its liberation. Drawing upon his strong personal connection to the atrocities that occurred there, Chairman Genachowski's remarks captured the spirit of the anniversary of the Auschwitz liberation, and highlighted our obligation to fight hatred and intolerance by never forgetting the stories of the prisoners of Auschwitz and the forces who freed them. I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert Chairman Genachowski's remarks into the Record. Auschwitz: Remembrance and Responsibility (Oswiecim, Poland, Jan. 27, 2010) Thank you to the government and people of Poland for hosting this important event, and to the International Auschwitz Council and the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. I'm grateful to President Obama for asking me to lead the delegation representing the United States on the occasion of the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. I'm privileged to be part of such a distinguished delegation, along with Assistant to the President Susan Sher, Ambassador Lee Feinstein, Special Envoy Hanna Rosenthal, and three extraordinary survivors of the Holocaust, each with powerful experiences and deeply noble lives: Mr. Roman Kent, Ms. Charlene Schiff, and Ms. Eda Sternberg-Powidzki. I also welcome colleagues from the United States Department of Education, here to participate in the Education Ministers' Conference on ``Auschwitz: Memory, Responsibility, Education''--Matthew Yale, who is the department's Deputy Chief of Staff, and Phil Rosenfelt, who is Deputy General Counsel and the Secretary of Education's designated representative to the council for the Holocaust Museum. As head of this delegation to Auschwitz, I was sent to mourn, to remember, to testify--for I have a connection with this part of Europe, and with the solemn grounds on which we stand today. Genachowski is a name pronounced easily in this part of the world. My family has roots in Poland, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, and other nearby countries. Roots like Bella Rabinovitch and her family, a Jewish family. Bella was a mother of four--three grown girls and a boy-- living in Belgium in the first half of the last century. Her husband, Chaim Ben Zion, was the Cantor in Antwerp's main synagogue. His gift was his voice, which he used to lead the congregation in prayer and to sing his beloved operas. Bella's children were married; young grandchildren were part of the family mix. A nice life for a girl originally from a poor rural village in the Ukraine. But as the German invasion of Europe spread into Belgium, Bella's world began to crumble. One daughter and son-in-law fled the country, fearing the worst. Then Bella's husband and son were arrested and sent to a slave labor camp. Another son-in-law, Shimon, was picked up by the SS on a streetcar (his identity card checked; it was marked ``J''). He brazenly escaped, and that night left the country with his wife, Bella's daughter Dina, and their five-year-old son Azriel. Of course, the worst was yet to come. Bella went into hiding with her remaining daughter, son-in- law, and grandson. Like so many others, they were eventually discovered. The Nazis gave Bella the choice to stay in Antwerp. She chose the gruesome transport with her family. On April 19, 1942, Bella and what was left of her family in Belgium were packed onto a train along with 1,396 others. After three days in the cattle car, they arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The meticulous Nazi records are clear on the dates. But there is much we can only wonder about. Did they see the sign ``Arbeit Macht Frei'' (so callously stolen recently, and fortunately recovered)? Did they know what was next? Did they recognize that smell in the air? When the train stopped they were unloaded into a line where fates were decided. The records state that Bella Rabinovitch, along with Sara, Isaac and four-year-old Jacob were ``Gazes a L'Arivee''-- gassed on arrival. Over 1,000 of the 1,400 passengers on that train were gassed on arrival. Bella is not famous, but you knew her story already, a story with millions of different beginnings but one tragic ending. Bella Rabinovitch was my great-grandmother. I am the descendant of a victim whose ashes reside on these grounds. My father, Azriel Genachowski, was the five-year-old boy I told you about. His path to freedom with his parents was harrowing, and at several key moments over many months non- Jews risked their lives to save his. Azriel Genachowski and my mother Adele are here today, with the American delegation. They survived the Nazi onslaught of Europe. They taught me what I have told you. They taught me what Simon Weisenthal once said, ``Survival is a privilege which entails obligations.'' Out of the ashes of the Nazi terror come many obligations. As President Obama said last year upon visiting Buchenwald, a death camp his great uncle helped liberate as an army infantryman, ``It is up to us to bear witness; to ensure that the world continues to note what happened here; to remember all those who survived and all those who perished, and to remember them not just as victims, but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed just like us.'' We must remember them not only with our words and prayers, but with our deeds--working to ensure that the sacred phrase ``Never Again,'' never becomes mechanical language, never drains of meaning. Elie Weisel teaches, ``If we forget, we are guilty, we are accomplices.'' We must remember the courageous prisoners, soldiers, resistance fighters, and ordinary civilians--Soviets, Poles, Germans, Danes, Americans, and so many others--who risked their lives and sacrificed so much to save others, reminding us of the boundless human capacity for good. Our burden is even greater as those who liberated the camps are now in their eighties, and only a handful of concentration camp survivors remain. As death is taking those whom genocide spared, we must respond to what Czeslaw Milosz called ``the command to participate actively in history.'' We must renew our commitment to fight for freedom and against intolerance. Anti-semitism, hatred, and racism remain deep and troubling facts of modern life, the world over. The memory of the atrocities committed at Auschwitz and throughout Europe must steel our resolve to fight every form of intolerance and inhumanity. The Holocaust proves many sad truths. One is that modernity is not an inoculation against genocide. The pillars of modernity--science and technology--are powerful forces. Perverted for evil by the Nazis, but also sources of unlimited hope, opportunity and transformative change. My father, who eventually came to the United States to study engineering, taught me about the power of technology to transform lives for the better. Let us fight so that technology is deployed to spread knowledge, to educate, to ensure that people in all corners of the world know of death-camp victims, survivors, and liberators. Let us fight so that technology is used to shine a light on oppression and intolerance, to illuminate persecution and dehumanization, to take oppression and mass murder out of the shadows. We know that the Nazis sought to shut off from the rest of the world the unspeakable killing that went on here. We know that for the Nazis control of the flow of information was an imperative, an SS boot on the free flow of news. Let us fight for freedom. For fundamental freedoms disregarded too often and tragically in the 20th century, fundamental freedoms that, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has urged, we must enshrine as core principles in the 2lst century--freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear, and freedom to connect. The freedom of information is essential, while also no substitute for the power of actual places to teach and instruct. It is a moral imperative to preserve Auschwitz and other physical sites of remembrance, because they shock us into an understanding that ideas alone cannot. As the survivors continue to leave us, places like this take on an even greater importance. Because places like Auschwitz aren't really mute. In their unspeaking way, they tell us of the unspeakable. The former prisoners who first proposed a memorial and museum at Auschwitz-Birkenau knew this. This place, and others like it, stands as a refutation of those who insist the Holocaust never happened--a denial of the truth that is baseless, ignorant, and driven by hatred. The great American writer Mark Twain said: ``A lie travels halfway around the world before the truth puts its shoes on.'' Today's haters are using old and new tools to foster Holocaust denial and mass murder. Let us come together to counter those efforts. Let us work together to make sure the facts of the Holocaust and its lessons remain fresh for each new generation. My daughter, Lilah, is five years old--the same age as my father when he and his parents made their escape from Nazi- occupied Belgium. My son, Aaron, is three years old--the same age as his mom's father in Nazi-occupied Holland when his parents handed him over to be hidden by righteous non-Jewish heroes who risked their lives to save people they didn't know. We preserve Auschwitz-Birkenau so that children all over the world like Lilah, Aaron, and their older brother Jake can visit and absorb the full dimensions of the unthinkable tragedy that occurred here. Bella Rabinovitch is gone, but her spirit lives on in eight grandchildren, 21 great-grandchildren, and 45 great-great- grandchildren, each a living legacy to the victory over Nazi oppression. In Israel and throughout the world, Jews and other groups singled out by the Nazis for extermination survive and thrive. Bella's spirit also lives on in those who liberated Auschwitz-Birkenau three years after her death; and in those here participating 65 years later in this multi-national, multi-generational recognition that the horrors she and so many others witnessed and suffered must never be permitted to recur. We are humbled by the survivors. We honor the liberators. We mourn the victims. In their name, we say: Yitgadal Vyitkadash Shme Raba. In their name, we pledge to remember. In their name, we pledge: Never Again.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the extraordinary work of the journalists, editors, and staff of the Wave, a neighborhood newspaper in Rockaway, Queens that was recently named ``The Best Neighborhood Paper'' in New York City by New York's Village Voice. The Wave has been serving the many communities of the Rockaway peninsula for 116 years. Each Friday, residents read this venerable publication not only to stay informed about the peninsula, but also to make sure their voices are heard and not forgotten by City Hall, Albany, and our nation's capital. The Wave's managing editor Howard Schwach, and all its reporters have been instrumental in turning this local weekly into the most widely read newspaper in Rockaway. Through their work these journalists remind us all of the essential role that the neighborhood press play in telling the stories often missed in the commotion of cable television and the twenty-four hour news cycle. This outstanding newspaper has covered everything from shootings and burglaries to the mystery surrounding the abrupt shuttering of a long- time Catholic high school. Furthermore, it provides a crucial forum for residents to express their opinions on happenings in their community, problems affecting their city, and issues of concern throughout the country. It is the stories that they tell which should remind us all of the ``facts on the ground''--the stories to inform and inspire our policy and legislative work. It can change the world by making seen the invisible, teaching the unknown, and challenging the conventional wisdom. We all should commend The Wave; its publisher, Susan B. Locke; its general manager, Sanford M. Bernstein; its managing editor, Howard Schwach; its art director, Felicia Scarola-Edwards; its sports editor, Elio Velez; its staff reporter, Nicholas Briano; its contributing editor, Miriam Rosenberg; art assistants James Corbin, Carolina Cohen, Mike Delia, Judy Gardonyi, Colleen Mulvey, Janette Rappo, and Don Rodriguez; and columnists Erin Baumann, Nancy Brady, Jon Paul Culotta, Dorothy Dunne, Dr. Nancy Gahles, Marilyn Gelfand, James Glasser, Liz Guarino, Susan Hartenstein, Emil R. Lucev, Linda Marshak, Stuart Mirsky, Dr. Tim Rohrs, Mornam Scott, Robert Snyder, Robin Shapiro, and Stephen Yaegar for their incredible work and congratulate them all for this honor.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, in an effort to scare people and to frighten them, a Member of this House came to the floor and suggested that the idea of having the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York might jeopardize the family of the mayor of the city of New York. Now putting aside for a moment that we have an opportunity in New York to have New Yorkers stand before the bar of justice and serve on a jury to finally put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to death, and that is exactly the way it should be, for any Member of this House to suggest that somehow to support the decision to have a trial would jeopardize family members of the mayor of the city of New York is outrageous. Now that Member knows who he is. That Member should apologize. That Member then should be quiet. It is one thing to bring a baby to the floor of Congress and use it as a prop during the health care debate and quite another to suggest that the family of the mayor of the city of New York might be in danger because they have a different political view of how to carry out justice.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. You know, there are honorable people on both sides of this debate; but there are moments that come along, and they come along about every generation or so, that make it clear why this side of the aisle are Republicans and why we're Democrats. In 1935 when there was the Social Security Act and we decided we weren't going to allow 30 percent of seniors to slip into poverty, Democrats proposed, Democrats passed; Republicans opposed Social Security. In 1965 when Medicare was passed, Democrats proposed, Democrats supported; Republicans opposed, and now Medicare is a fact of life. And the very same arguments that were made against Medicare then are being made tonight. I hear this talk about the single-payer plan that's going to creep over. I can tell you I wanted a single-payer plan. I would like it to be there, but it's not. But you opposed it then, and now you claim to support it. There's been a lot of talk about how big the bill is, but here's what it's all about: this is what Members of Congress get. This is a guidebook with affordable health care plans, many choices, deep discounts because we pool people together, minimum standards for each plan. This is what Members of Congress get, but they don't want you, the American people, to get it. This is what it's about: they say they want to protect Medicare, but it was they who wanted to eliminate it. They say they want to protect Social Security. It was they who wanted to privatize it. Now they say we don't want to cover those who are uninsured because you shouldn't care. Well, I say to my colleagues, who pay those bills? The bill fairy? Who pays those bills are you, the taxpayer. They say they want you to pay those, too. When you look at how big the bills are, remember this document. Eight million Americans who work for the Federal Government, including my colleagues, get this document in the mail. They get good health care. We want it for you. They're going to get Medicare at 65. They don't say we don't want Medicare because we don't believe in single-payer. They want it because they want to take and take and take, but they don't want it for you. The Democrats want this for you and the Republican Party just wants it for themselves. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Ladies and gentlemen, I have a viewer's guide for what's going to be going on on this side of the aisle this morning and this afternoon. What essentially it comes down to is my Republican friends don't want you, the American people, to have what they have. They say they don't want any government-run health care, but 55 of them have Medicare. You don't see them sending that back. They say that they don't want the plan that we have, which would create more choices for the American people. Well, they don't want you to have what they have. Go to the Web site for the Federal Employees Health Benefit plan and see what a great plan they have, but they don't want you to have more choice. Frankly, I don't know what it is they do want. They said 131 days ago they were going to have a plan. You hear that sound? That's the sound of their plan. They don't seem to have one. I have heard us talk about all this stuff going on behind closed doors. My friends, there are five committees, five bills. You can read them. I know it's a lot of words, but you can see exactly what the plan is. Listen to the American people. Give them what you in Congress have, a public option, like Medicare; and choices, like the insurance plan you have.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure again to come to the floor to talk about the issue that is capturing all of the national attention and a lot of attention of this body, and that is our pursuit of affordable health care for all Americans. There has been a lot of discussion about this so-called public option, this choice people would have when they are searching for insurance when they don't have it, the idea being that if you have a public alternative, an option that doesn't rely on profits, that doesn't rely on high overhead, that consumers would have a chance to choose it if they don't have insurance through their own employers. Now, it is interesting, because just this week we got an enormous boost, those of us who care about having a public option in the final bill, and it came from, of all places, the health insurance lobby. In a rare moment of candor, in a rare moment of telling us exactly what it is that they are going to do, they have told us something that should come as no surprise to anyone that has health insurance. They said they are going to keep raising rates. They said we can pass whatever we want here in Washington, they are going to keep raising rates. As a matter of fact, by their calculation, by 111 percent. Well, on one hand, I am stunned that they told the truth. On the other hand, I am not very surprised. Our rates have been going up twice if not three times the rate of our salaries every year. They have been going up about $1,000 for people who have health insurance. So the idea that they are thumping their chest and saying they are going to keep doing it is not a surprise. But the fact that they were so honest about making it very clear that we need competition for the health insurance companies is refreshing. They have made it crystal clear. The private insurance companies have said, you know what? If you don't have competition for us, rates are going to keep going up. The public option, by the way, is not a mysterious thing. A lot of my colleagues here in the House of Representatives have it. Yes. They have Medicare. And I checked. Not a single one of them that is eligible for the government public plan we have today has said no. Maybe it is because they are like the country, that says, you know what? Ninety-six percent of people say they like Medicare. They like the care they get. It only has 3.5 percent overhead, not the 30 percent overhead and profits that private insurance companies get. They like it, but they don't want you to have it. They don't want you to have the plan that they have. So many Members of Congress who are 65 say, no, you can't have it if you are 55 or 45 or 35. It is only for us. Well, that is not exactly true. It is for every single American who turns 65. It is a government-funded, single-payer, government- administered health care plan that every year we do a survey about, and 96 percent of people who are on Medicare say they like it. You can do the following test: Knock on the door or go to a neighbor or stop someone at the diner who looks like they are 55. Ask them, would you like it if tomorrow you got Medicare? Watch their face light up. They would love it. Now, we are not proposing that. The President is not proposing that. I know I would like to have a program like Medicare for all Americans. All that is being proposed in the public option is that people who don't have insurance through their work, people that don't have insurance through Medicare or Medicaid, that relatively small group of people, the 10 percent or so of the country, that when they go out and shop for insurance with the subsidies we are going to give them, one of the options is not the insurance companies that said in this report they are going to raise rates 111 percent. That is it. That is what the big bogeyman is all about. Let me show you this chart here to give you a sense for how unfrightening that concept would be. This is the $2.6 trillion of money we spend every year on health care. $2.6 trillion. I ask my colleagues, do you think we can do a little better for $2.6 trillion. We are getting such a great bargain? Well, let's take a look at this. These boxes here, Medicare, Medicaid, DOD, Veterans Affairs and Department of Health Services, are all single-payer, government-funded, government-administered health care plans. And every day I hear my Republican friends thumping their chest, you gotta protect the VA, you gotta protect Medicare. Oh, yeah? But you don't want to extend it to the rest of the country. Why is that? What is the big fear? The fear is, they are in a wholly owned subsidiary of this group right here. This is the private insurance companies, the ones that wrote this report that says that rates are going to go up 111 percent. Now, in this $854 billion, do you know how much of that is profits and overhead? Take a guess. Up to 30 percent. And what some us are saying is, if you want to find savings in the system, and you don't want to cut into health care, maybe it is a place to start. Can you do maybe with 10 percent? 12 percent? 15 percent? Up to 30 percent. That is savings that we can get right there. But we are trying to get savings using a free market model. Competition. Let's see if there is someone that can do it more efficiently than 30 percent overhead. We know, for example, Medicare can do it with about 3.5 percent overhead. That is the public option, and my colleagues don't want them to have what they have, which is government-funded health care.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 26) proclaiming Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of the United States posthumously.

Mr. WEINER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.