Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I rise to a point of order.

Madam Chair, under the rule, Members are entitled to 5 minutes to speak to the matter at hand. Members are waiting; principally among them is myself waiting at the microphone to be recognized for that purpose. And now it sounds like you are proceeding to shut down debate. I say that it is in violation of the order of the House, as decided by the Rules Committee, to permit Members to speak for 5 minutes on this matter. It is early in the evening, and many Members are waiting to speak.

Madam Chair, point of parliamentary inquiry.

So the Chair is deciding, notwithstanding the fact that a Member is standing here to speak about the plan to end Medicare, not to mention Members are here seeking to be recognized, I believe of both parties, the Chair is choosing at this moment that this is the propitious moment to cut off debate, early in the evening when we have plenty of work to do and Members seek to speak and offer amendments?

Is the Chair deciding arbitrarily, or was she given guidance to do this by the Republican leadership who don't want to hear any more critique of their plans to end Medicare?

* * *

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, you may recall, I was standing here approximately 2 hours ago waiting to speak with several other Members on the efforts of my Republican friends to eliminate Medicare as we know it, and for reasons that are known only to the Chair, I was denied the ability to do that. Well, I am back.

And just to review the bidding, here is where it was before that order was made. We had the chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, a good man, a guy I like, stand down in the well and say, oh, no--and this, by the way, is someone who was elected by the Republican Members to represent him in races all around the country, saying that the Ryan plan wasn't a plan. It was--and I am quoting here--a construct to develop a plan. And he said that the proposal was not a voucher program. And then he said it was a one-size- fits-all, that Medicare was draining our economy is what he said.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, that might be the rationale for our Republican friends wanting to eliminate Medicare, but none of those things are true. It is not a construct to develop a plan. It is the proposal of the Republican Party of the United States of America to eliminate Medicare as a guaranteed entitlement. If you don't believe me, go get the book that they wrote. Go get the budget that they wrote, go get the bill that they wrote.

And if you believe that it's not a voucher program, listen to their own Members talk about it. The Medicare program today is not, I say to my friends, one size fits all. My good friend from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) was on the floor before talking about how it's one size fits all. How can it possibly be you can be a Member of the United States House of Representatives and not understand how Medicare works?

Each individual senior gets to go to the doctor of their choosing, gets to go to the clinic of their choosing, gets to decide for themselves where they go, and then the doctor and the patient make decisions.

The only question is: Are we going to say to citizens who are 65 and older, Here is a coupon. Go buy private insurance at 25 and 30 percent overhead rather than the Medicare program, which the actuaries say cost 1.05 percent in overhead?

We have also heard them say, You are demagogueing. We don't really want to get rid of it. You do.

Now, there is a saying here in Washington that a gaffe is when the Republicans actually say what they think. So there have been plenty of opportunities to see this gaffe in full play. Now, they

have been tying themselves in intellectual knots trying to get out from under the basic facts.

By the way, I hope your insurance plan, the Ryan plan, covers the twisted arms and limbs you get tying yourselves in knots explaining this.

It is a radical departure from where we are today. Mr. Gingrich was right, even the blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while. He was right. It's a radical departure, but it's yours. Own it. Show a little gumption. Show that you are prepared to own your own proposals. But now that you want to do it and the American people are seeing the difference between Democrats and Republicans, now you are trying to squirrel your way out of it, with no disrespect to squirrels.

You say we don't have a plan. Not only did we pass a health care plan a year ago that extended 10 years the life expectancy of Medicare, but I will go one better. I will give you a plan. How about Medicare not starting at 65? What about 55 or 45 or 35? What is it that health insurance companies do in this country?

Now, I know that my Republican friends are wholly owned subsidiaries of the insurance industry, but that should not mean that our seniors lose their Medicare because of it. So, my friends Mr. Sessions and Mr. Gingrey were trying desperately to try to figure out how to get out from under your own beliefs. We believe in Medicare. We created it. We believe in Social Security. We created it. We believe in the health care act. We created it.

As a matter of fact, every improvement to health care in this country, Democrats propose, Republicans oppose. And now they have a chance to get rid of it, and they are doing it. But at least if you are going to do it, at least if you are going to try to do it, don't try to silence people who point it out.

And I think the lesson here is it might be later. If you had me come back at midnight, I would have said it. If I came back at 2 a.m., I would have said it, because the American people are going to see what's going on here.

You have a proposal to eliminate Medicare, a proposal to privatize a portion of Social Security by investing in the stock market, a proposal to roll back the expansion of prescription drug coverage for seniors. You have a proposal to take away the benefits of those 25 and younger to be able to get health insurance. That is your proposal. Own it. Live with it. Embrace it, because we are not going to let you get out from under it.

And you may delay me, you may gavel me, you may tell me you have got to come back at 2 o'clock in the morning. It's not going to change the fundamentals of this debate, that if you believe fundamentally in Medicare, at this point you have got two choices: Tear up your Republican Party membership or give up control of Congress, and, frankly, some of you are going to have to do both.

I rise as the designee of the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor) to offer an amendment that is satisfied by the preprinting requirement.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and hope we all vote for it.

I just do want to take an opportunity to respond to the gentleman who was just at the microphone. It is one thing to say you're saving Medicare, but if you leave a different Medicare when you're done than today, if it is entirely different, how have you saved it?

I know ``premium support'' or ``price support'' is the term of art that is now trying to take hold as you desperately try to figure out how to explain what you are doing, but let me make it very clear, and if I say anything incorrect, the gentleman can rise and I will permit him to correct me.

Under the proposal of the gentleman from Wisconsin, under the proposal of the Republicans in Congress, that at a certain point in the future, Medicare as we have it today, as a guaranteed entitlement safety net program for seniors, will cease to exist. That is the Ryan plan. I will pause while anyone seeks to correct that.

That silence you hear, ladies and gentlemen of the United States of America, is because I just said something that is factually correct. The Ryan plan, which is now the Republican plan, which is now the plan that has passed the House, would end Medicare as we know it. Now, that has never been something that they have hidden from before. They even had a book, ``The Young Guns,'' or something. Does the gentleman from New Jersey remember what it was called? It was like ``The Young Guns.'' They were parading them all around the country with this book that explained it, this is the way Medicare is going to look.

You say it is price support. Okay. It is price support unless you can't be supported by the price of the voucher. If you are a senior citizen, I say to the previous speaker, if you are a senior citizen and you are given this thing, call it what you want, a coupon, a voucher, a price support document, and you go around and look for insurance in your neighborhood and you can't find it, under the law that you passed, you are out of luck. But you are not entirely out of luck. Your family can go pay out of their own pocket and may be able to buy insurance.

Now, you are a good, fit, healthy man, God bless you, and you should be

so for many years to come. But the fact is that many senior citizens cannot go into the private market and buy insurance with a price support document or voucher or coupon. They won't be able to get it, which is why Medicare was created in the first place, because the conventional way of saying, ``You know what; each and every person for themselves is the way we are going to get health care'' was leaving senior citizens out.

I want to explain to my Republican colleagues a little something about economics. When we join together as a society, as a large buying pool, we get better treatment as consumers. We get a lower price. Fewer people buying car insurance, prices go up. All of us in a pari-mutuel relationship, prices come down. That is basic economics, but it is being violated by the Ryan plan, which is the Republican plan, which is the plan you now own and have to defend.

But to say, you know, We don't really want to defend it because we are uncomfortable with it, it is yours now. And you say, We are trying to save Medicare. We are trying to save it. If you want to save it, then it has to be a Medicare program. It can't just be some kind of a coupon.

But I want to talk very briefly in my remaining time about this idea that we don't have plans. I have a plan that I want you all to consider. It is taking the efficient program of Medicare, which has managed to keep administrative costs far below any insurance plan in the country, any one of them. If any one of them can come even close to Medicare efficiency, then I would say let's go get that one, but they can't.

Why is it that we say that only people 65 and above should get that efficiency? Why don't we say to the roughly 30 percent profits and overhead insurance companies are taking, Who needs you guys? You are taking our money.

We are giving it to insurance companies. They are not doing any exams. They are not doing any checkups. They are not operating on any people. All they are doing is taking our money, taking 20 percent off the top and then passing some of it along to doctors and hospitals. What are they performing in the economy? Let's take them out of the formula.

Now, we didn't go this way in the ObamaCare plan, which I proudly call it. But I have to tell you, there is a competition going on in this country right now between the for-profit, employer-based model with a 30 percent overhead and Medicare with 1.05 percent overhead. I say Medicare for all Americans. It is an American Democratic plan that we should extend to more people. You want efficiency? Get more people into that buying pool. Let's take advantage of the large numbers of people that we have and cover them with insurance at a lower rate.

But we didn't go that way. We went a Republican way. In the Obama proposal, it was essentially a Republican proposal that said let's give them all health insurance. Now what you are saying is let's see if we can do that for senior citizens and still call it Medicare. You can't. You can't.

You say you are saving Medicare. You are destroying Medicare, and we Democrats and the people of this country are going to stop you.

Point of Order

I ask to be heard on the point of order.

It is arguable whether or not this does increase spending because all this does is change the effective date. But I can tell you this: This is the exact same argument we heard today from Mr. Cantor, who said they would not authorize any spending to help the people who were the victims of that horrible tornado recently because that, too, would need to be paid for.

Sometimes you have things that are emergencies in this country. Sometimes you have things that, frankly, under the emergency powers of this Congress, we should be able to implement.

I believe that while it is arguable that the effective date changes the net expense of this bill, because all this really does, the fact of the matter is that we have a responsibility to seniors in this country. We have a responsibility to those on Medicare to try to save it, just the same way I would say we have a responsibility to the citizens of this country who were ravaged by storm. And to hear your leadership say we would not allocate any funds for that purpose without going through a budget debate is outrageous.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to point out something else. Who is going to be left to pay for it?

Obviously, localities in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York are not going to let people lie sick in the streets. It's just going to mean local taxes are going to get raised and that State taxes are going to get raised because, ultimately, it's not whether people get health care; it's just how it's paid for. Frankly, by cutting it off, it doesn't mean that. It just means that we're passing it along in an unfunded mandate to localities.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I say to the Chair, when I was here at 6 o'clock and was cut off by the Chair and was taken off my feet and lost my ability to speak for reasons that are only known to the Chair, I was prepared to make my 5-minute remarks, and the other Members were prepared to do the same.

I want to say that, just as a matter of comity and as a matter of our all getting along, this is an important debate, and if the effort were to try to figure out a way to stymie the debate and to silence some of us, I just want to remind you that it's not going to work and that we're going to find a way to make this debate happen even if it's late into the evening. But I just want to continue on a point that the gentleman from New Jersey made, and I want us to understand a little bit about the basic tenets of how Medicare works.

Many Members on the other side of the aisle came to the floor today and talked about Medicare as being a one-size-fits-all plan. Medicare works because of its flexibility. My father is a member of an HMO. He chose that option. People can go to individual pay-per-service doctors.

Now, there is no disputing that health care--all health care--is on a rising arc that is unsustainable. That's why the Republican strategy of doing nothing and drilling its head into the sand for years was no longer sustainable, and that's why we Democrats, without a single Republican vote, had to do something about it. The arc of cost is strangling our economy. The arc of cost of not having people insured and of passing along the bills to all of us was an unsustainable model. That's why we made changes that made Medicare more efficient.

For example, one of the things that my friends want to eliminate is the idea that, under Medicare now, under the Affordable Care Act, under ObamaCare, preventative services for seniors are reimbursed 100 percent--no copayment. Why do we do that, and how does that save money? It's because of what our parents and grandparents have taught us time immemorial, that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that by providing coverage for that you actually save money in Medicare. How did we extend Medicare by 10 years? That's one of the ways that we did it.

What my colleagues fail to understand is that we acted just last year. You ask, Where is your plan? We acted just last year to extend the life of Medicare; to expand services provided under Medicare; to reduce the cost to the economy; to provide coverage for the uninsured; to reduce the burden on localities and cities that have to pay for the uninsured now. That's what we did.

What are you doing? You're saying let's take not only the Affordable Care Act and eliminate all of those protections, but let's go back 40- some-odd years, and let's eliminate the Medicare Act, and let's replace it with something that, oh, lo and behold, takes taxpayer dollars and gives it to insurance companies.

Now, anyone watching this movie from the beginning knows that that's your basic modus operandi, that that's what you always seek to do--to enrich insurance companies. But if you want to provide care for seniors--Democrat seniors, Republican seniors, seniors with no party affiliation--Medicare has turned out to be a very efficient way to do it. Does that mean there are not rising health care costs across the board? Yes, but I'm going to tell you something. Here's this for an interesting little fact:

Medicare's rising cost is actually less than that of the private insurance market. Well, how can that be? Because, as I said, Medicare doesn't take money for profits. Medicare doesn't take money for shareholders. Medicare doesn't take money for advertisements. Medicare doesn't take money for giant call centers, where you call them, and they put you on hold and then ultimately don't give you their service. They don't give giant bonuses to their CEOs. Medicare is an efficient program that's well run because that's how we roll, we Democrats. We do efficient programs that are well run.

What do you do? You want to eliminate them. You like that.

That's how they roll. They want to eliminate these programs. We're standing in the way, but we're not standing alone because seniors of all stripes and even people who are young people who want to someday become seniors understand a program that works when they see it. They also understand a party in retreat when they see it, I say to my good friend. We see how you guys are coming down here. Well, it's not a voucher; it's a coupon. It's not a coupon; it's a price support. Earlier in the day, someone said you're draining the Federal Government. One size fits all.

You guys, I have not seen so much defensive talk in years. But you ought to be a little bit defensive about this because we found out what you believe in. You campaigned on what you were against, and this is apparently it. But here it is. Now you've got to defend it. You should do a better job than simply saying, Oh, no, no, no, no. We love this Democratic program. We're not trying to hurt it.

The American people are much too smart for this. They know if you say we're taking away a guaranteed protection and we're replacing it with a price support document, or whatever euphemism you're going to work, that we Democrats are going to stand up and call you on it every day. You can huff and you can puff, but eventually, it's going to be us blowing your house down. Ultimately, it's going to be the citizens of this country saying, You

know what? I remember now why we put Democrats in charge when we wanted to take care of people, because they create programs like Medicare, and Republicans want to eliminate them.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I also want to express my appreciation to Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, Chairman Runyan of the subcommittee, and our colleague Congressman McNerney.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1627, which contains authorization language from a bill that I sponsored, House Concurrent Resolution 12, to designate a plot of land at Arlington Cemetery to be used for a memorial honoring the Jewish chaplains of our Armed Services.

Jewish chaplains have served our country for 149 years. In fact, there are 32 currently on active duty today, yet they still do not have a place with their Protestant and Catholic counterparts on Chaplains Hill in Arlington Cemetery. Today, all that is standing between Arlington Cemetery and a memorial for Jewish chaplains is the passage of this bill in the House and Senate.

I, frankly, am not the one who thought of creating a memorial for Jewish chaplains. In fact, like many Jewish Americans and veterans nationwide, I was surprised to learn that no such memorial existed at Arlington Cemetery. A citizen named Ken Kraetzer, who is the vice commander of the Sons of the American Legion for New York State and who is joining us here today, noted the absence of a monument for Jewish chaplains while he was researching the stories of the four immortal chaplains who died while giving final rites on board the USS Dorchester in 1943.

For those who are unfamiliar with the story, as I was, a convoy of three ships passed through ``torpedo alley'' off the coast of Greenland at about 1 a.m. on February 3, 1943. A German U-boat fired three torpedoes, one of which hit the Dorchester--a U.S. Army troop ship with more than 900 men on board. The four chaplains on board--two Protestant pastors, a Catholic priest and a Jewish rabbi--were among the first on deck, calming the men and handing out lifejackets. When they ran out of lifejackets, without regard to faith or race, they took off their own and placed them on waiting soldiers. Approximately 18 minutes from the explosion, the ship went down. By witnesses, they were last seen standing arm-in-arm on the hull of the ship, each praying in his own way for the care of the men. Almost 700 died that day, making it the third largest loss at sea of its kind for the United States during World War II.

While trying to locate these four famous chaplains on Chaplains Hill, Mr. Kraetzer noticed that Rabbi Alexander Goode was the only one of the four chaplains not distinguished by a memorial. Ken partnered with two other veterans, Rabbi Harold Robinson and Sol Moglen, who are also in the gallery today, to help lead fund-raising efforts. It took just a few months, and they raised over $50,000.

They used the other memorials as a model for the new monument they proposed for the 13 Jewish chaplains who lost their lives from 1943 to 1974. The monument, as designed, will stand 7 feet tall with a bronze plaque mounted on a granite slab, listing all 13 names, as well as the Jewish proverb, ``I ask not for a lighter burden but for broader shoulders,'' and it would also have an inscription of the Star of David. There will also be a place at the bottom for future chaplains if, God forbid, needed.

While planning this project, Mr. Kraetzer, Rabbi Robinson and Mr. Moglen were in touch with Arlington Cemetery. They were notified-- something that I'm sure members of the committee knew, but I did not-- that a 2001 rule requires congressional approval for all memorials at Arlington Cemetery, which we are rectifying today with this bill. It should be pointed out that the section of the bill that we are going to be sponsoring mirrors Senate action. Although it's part of a

larger bill, it will take effect as soon as their action takes effect. It does not need the signing of the President, according to those at the Army.

The group quickly alerted the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, the Jewish Welfare Board, the Jewish Chaplains Council, and they finally reached out to me. I was touched by the work of these great men, and quickly introduced a resolution to fix the problem. Senator Schumer is the sponsor of the Senate version, S. Con. Res. 4, which has 25 Senate sponsors. The resolution we have today is bipartisan in nature. It has 86 cosponsors, and had been endorsed by 35 Jewish organizations and 47 Jewish War Veterans chapters before being added to the bill.

The Jewish Federations of North America and Shelly Rood have been working to help pass this bill to recognize the achievements of these 13 Jewish chaplains. I also want to thank Major Gretchen Gardner of Arlington Cemetery for helping us all navigate the Army's process.

My staff has been ensured by Major Gardner and others that, if we and the Senate pass this bill, it will satisfy the requirements of 32 CFR 553.22(1) of the Code of Federal Regulations, which governs the monuments at Arlington Cemetery.

Finally, surviving members of the chaplains have been involved in this process. I want to particularly recognize David and Rafael Engel, who are the sons of Meir Engel, and their children, Jonathan and Yael, who are here with us today, as well as Vera Silberberg, the daughter of Morton Singer.

I am very grateful that we are one step closer to raising this monument and to properly honoring the brave Jewish chaplains who serve our country today. There can be no better way to celebrate Jewish Heritage Month. I look forward to the ceremony at Arlington Cemetery that will follow this vote.

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, if it would be appropriate, I would like to now list the names of the 13 fallen chaplains who will be honored on this memorial should this become law:

Captain Nachman Arnoff of the United States Army, Lieutenant Colonel Meir Engel of the United States Army, First Lieutenant Frank Goldenberg of the United States Army, Lieutenant Alexander Goode of the United States Army, Lieutenant Henry Goody of the United States Army, Major Samuel Hurwitz of the United States Army, First Lieutenant Herman Rosen of the United States Army, Lieutenant Colonel Samuel Rosen of the United States Air Force, First Lieutenant Solomon Rosen of the United States Army, Captain Morton Singer of the United States Army, Captain David Sobel of the United States Air Force, Captain Irving Tepper of the United States Army, and First Lieutenant Louis Werfel of the United States Army.

May God bless their souls, and may we remember them and honor them with a memorial at Arlington Cemetery.

I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this, and I thank my colleagues for their indulgence.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the sheriff for yielding.

When we lay down at night to sleep and we kiss our children to bed and we thank God for the country we live in and pray for good things for the day ahead, we know that whether we're in a small town with one sheriff or a police department like New York City that has over 38,000, that somewhere there are men and women who are out

there protecting us. And unfortunately, as the sheriff points out, sometimes they don't come home. This is the time of year that we join together to pay tribute to them.

We know as we stand here today that we do all we can to give them the tools to do their job, but at the end of the day, they are out there every single day. Rarely does someone stop a police officer and thank them because their car didn't get stolen, or their house wasn't burglarized, or they woke up in the morning and their home was safe, but this is the time of year we recognize that all of them are prepared to make sacrifices for us, and we should join in paying tribute to them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Temple Beth Emeth v'Ohr Progressive Shaari Zedek on their 100th Anniversary. The temple has provided faithful and devoted service to the Brooklyn community and has shown great commitment to the Jewish religion.

For 100 years, Temple Beth Emeth v'Ohr Progressive Shaari Zedek has shown great dedication to the Brooklyn community and has instilled their members with a strong sense of Jewish identity. I commend this outstanding temple and the excellent work they have done in the Brooklyn community and the City of New York.

Temple Beth Emeth v'Ohr Progressive Shaari Zedek represents the best of the Brooklyn community. They have dedicated their talents to provide their neighbors time for spiritual reflection and renewal with weekly Shabbat services and have improved the quality of life for their neighbors, friends, and family.

Temple Beth Emeth v'Ohr Progressive Shaari Zedek is truly a pillar of strength built on the support of their faithful members. Their members' generous and active involvement has contributed to the many years of phenomenal service that the temple has provided.

I am honored to recognize Temple Beth Emeth v'Ohr Progressive Shaari Zedek on the occasion of their centennial year and further extend my gratitude for their many loyal years of service to the Brooklyn community and I hope they continue to grow and provide the quality service for which they are so well known.

Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order against consideration of H. Res. 218.

Madam Speaker, I object to consideration of this rule because the rule in its final language says that the Clerk shall hold the enrollment of this bill until the Senate considers bills to defund health care reform and considers a bill to defund Planned Parenthood.

As such, it violates the rules of the House which require that anything passed by this House be filed forthwith. And with your permission, I will read that section:

``The Clerk shall examine all bills, amendments, and joint resolutions after passage by the House and, in cooperation with the Senate, examine all bills and joint resolutions that have passed both Houses to see that they are correctly enrolled and forthwith present those bills and joint resolutions that originated in the House to the President in person after their signature by the Speaker and the President of the Senate, and report to the House the fact and date of their presentment.''

In fact, what this rule does is it says that after this is passed, it shall not be sent to the Senate, shall not be sent to the President until the other body, the Senate, takes an action, considers these two things which already have been considered here.

This is clearly a violation of the rules and a very dangerous violation of the Constitution as well, because we believe in this House that our actions, once taken, trigger an action in the other body or by the President.

If we are to say that bills, when passed by this body, are held in spaces at the desk by an officer of this institution, a non-elected officer of this institution, we are, in fact, violating this rule.

It is very important, Madam Speaker, that you rule that this rule needs to be sent back and cleansed of that language, or else we are, in effect, saying the passage of an act here shall be contingent upon the consideration of something in the Senate. That is a dangerous precedent, violates the laws, and violates the Constitution of the United States.

I ask for your ruling.

Madam Speaker, a point of parliamentary inquiry.

Am I to understand this rule correctly that under the rule we are about to consider, if the House of Representatives approves the continuing resolution, that bill, despite the fact that the government is going to cease operating unless it passes, could theoretically sit at the desk, never to be sent to the President, never to be sent to the Senate ad infinitum if the Senate fails to take a specific action?

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. 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.

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

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. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.

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?

The rule exists, but we don't need to follow it.

I withdraw my parliamentary inquiry.

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

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. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.

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. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.

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. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

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

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.

Madam Chair, point of order.

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.

Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order.

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.

Madam Speaker, I do.

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----

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 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.