Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity. I also want to thank my colleague, Mr. Miller, with whom I offer this amendment.

This is a similar amendment--in fact, it is identical to one that was adopted by voice vote. There are problems with some FHA programs, and they are addressed in this bill. And there are some losing programs; there are some programs that simply haven't worked out very well.

One program that has been a consistent money-maker for the taxpayer and one that has driven the marketplace to do good things is the Multifamily Loan Program. However, in that program, the limits set for how much the loan can be guaranteed for have not risen as fast as the cost in a lot of communities.

So what the Weiner-Miller amendment would do is simply raise the limits to keep up with the cost and create something called an ``extreme high-cost area.''

The way the program works is they essentially say, this is the limit to which we will underwrite, guarantee a loan for new construction or to modify a home. But if you have an apartment building--four, five, 10, 50, 100 units--obviously the costs wind up going up as you need things like elevators and HVAC going into big buildings. And what happens is, in places like Los Angeles and New York and Las Vegas and Miami, these costs have simply not been kept up with. The result has been that the loan program has not been very useful there.

What we do is we take a loan limit of $183,000, almost $184,000, create a new extreme high-cost area that the Secretary will be able to designate where the limits will be higher, $377,000.

For those people who are concerned, well, are we going in the wrong direction and giving too much exposure to a program that we should be tightening up, this is a program that, unlike the single-family homes, where the program there has an extreme delinquency rate of about 8 percent, this one only has one of 0.3 percent.

Frankly, this is not a problem program, so we are just increasing the limits on one that really would encourage people to make loans to small businesses for developing.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I think my colleague states it very well, and I urge a ``yes'' vote as well.

I just want to point out, this is not a zero-sum game. There is nothing about the single-home market that is going to be impacted by this. There is nothing about the higher cost that is going to be impacted. This is just allowing this program to function in all quarters of the housing market and to take into accommodation the things that my colleague says, things like bigger buildings have very often higher costs.

As I said, this has an outstanding delinquency rate of 0.3 percent. If every housing program and every housing guarantee program, despite the very difficult downturn, had such a small delinquency rate as this, then I think we would all be very happy with it. So increasing these limits I don't believe would have any deleterious effect.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of the Special Order that I and Leader Hoyer will be convening for the following hour.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, in the overnight hours of May 31, about 10 days ago, news broke that we now have become very familiar with--the previous speaker referred to it, and several of my colleagues have come to the floor this evening to talk about it--where a flotilla coming from Turkey was intercepted as part of the effort of the State of Israel to defend a blockade that was set up.

I want to spend the next hour talking a little bit about that boat and how it progressed, where it came from and why, and perhaps importantly drill into a little bit the idea of what the blockade is all about and what the history was. It is impossible to fully understand this issue only looking at it from the point of Israeli naval officers climbing on board a ship and saying, okay, I think I understand the story because I see that picture. That would no more be the truth than to watch the closing scene of Casablanca and say, okay, I understand what happened in this movie.

This was indeed a tragic thing. Anytime there is loss of life, anytime you have military officers, commandos climbing on a boat, something has broken down, something has failed. But what I don't think is fully understood, and still to this day isn't understood at capitals around the world, is who initiated this thing and why it was initiated.

Make no mistake about it, my colleagues, as Leader Hoyer will be mentioning when he arrives here shortly, the condemnation that rang around the world against Israel is almost a default position in European and Arab capitals of the world. There is almost no surprise. It is also true that those very same quarters are the ones that criticize the United States at just about any opportunity. And in many of those same places you also see far too much joyous chest beating anytime something like this goes down where the United States or Israel is involved.

It was undoubtedly unfortunate that it occurred, but it didn't happen by accident. If you look at the history of this incident, it actually started not on May 31, when the sailors climbed aboard that boat, but it started on May 17, a couple of weeks earlier. What happened then? What happened then was the Israeli Government got wind of the idea that this flotilla was leaving from Cyprus, Turkey, and said, look, understand that there is a blockade around Gaza that controls what can get inside of Gaza for obvious reasons that I will go into further later. But, frankly, to stop weapons from going into Gaza, because it is weapons and missiles that have come into the Gaza Strip, which is controlled by the terrorist organization Hamas, that have been used to terrorize Israelis. Terrorize to the magnitude of about 10,000 rockets have left from Gaza since Israel left it in 2007 and Gaza was controlled by Hamas.

So they say we have an internationally recognized blockade that's been supported by both the Bush and Obama administrations to prevent ships from coming in without their having their goods inspected. So what the Israeli Government did is they reached out internationally to the sponsors of this boat and to the people on the boat and said, look, you are welcome to bring your supplies here to Gaza.

So it was on May 31 that this boat was intercepted off the coast of Gaza, but it was May 17 that Israel said, look, if you are interested in bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza, you are welcome to do it. All you have to do is bring it into Ashdod, which is right here, and we will look at the goods, make sure there is nothing dangerous in there, and then we will allow it to be escorted into Gaza via truck.

That's not an unusual occurrence. In fact, as of this morning 11,972 trucks during this period of time the blockade has been in effect have been escorted in just such a way. It's not unusual for humanitarian aid to come into Gaza. Despite much of the rhetoric we have heard from the international community, Israel facilitates it through a process.

Now, the people on those boats, this humanitarian boat that theoretically was trying to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza, said, no, we are going to take this flotilla of boats and we are going to go into the teeth of this blockade. They were reportedly warned repeatedly, and no one has disputed that.

They were warned, look, a blockade is essentially a military thing.

It is the same type of thing that we used in our blockade of Cuba. It is a recognized blockade. Because if you think about it, there aren't a lot of ways--if you look at the map here, this little stretch of land is what we are talking about. It borders Israel on some sides. Egypt, which is a participant in the blockade, they support and help support the blockade that Israel has. This huge coast here has been used in the past, particularly by the nation of Iran, to import weapons in.

But instead, this humanitarian ship, which was no humanitarian ship as we later learned, this humanitarian ship, said, no, we are going to keep going. Now, I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, none of us are naval officers in this Chamber. Actually, Congressman Sestak is a naval officer, and I don't see him here today. But when it comes to enforcing a blockade, you don't have a lot of tools in your quiver.

Now, there are some ways that you can debilitate a boat, that you can stop its rotors from turning by essentially jamming it up from waters underneath. That was done with one, two, three, four, five of the other boats that you didn't hear about in the newspaper. But those boats were stopped using the efforts of the military in Israel to stop them in the most peaceful way possible.

Now, if a boat is coming into a blockade and it might pose a threat to Israel or to the United States, I mean, you can very easily change the names of the country and say a boat was coming from Yemen to the United States, and it's coming in and it wants to cruise down into the East River. Of course the United States would not let that happen, and the Coast Guard would say you are going to stop right here so we can inspect what's on this boat. And if they kept going, certainly we would not say, oh, that's okay. Every step necessary would be taken to stop them.

Well, that's kind of what happened here. What effectively happened was this boat said we are not going to stop, and they said we are going to leave the Israelis with no opportunity except to board the boat. That's what created the conflict. Israel did not create the conflict. They were essentially in a defensive posture, saying this is the line, don't cross it; and we are going to give you every opportunity before you reach the line to avert this conflict. The people on the boat chose not to. They wanted this conflict. They wanted this conflict. They did not want to deliver humanitarian aid; they wanted this conflict.

Well, once the conflict was upon the Israelis, I think by just about any definition of restraint the Israelis used restraint. They climbed aboard with quite literally paint guns on their shoulders to use when they landed. The only arms that they had were sidearms for the personal protection of these guys. And when they lowered themselves down on the boat, they were set upon by these humanitarian peace activists, I say with my tongue firmly in cheek. They were set upon with knives. They were set upon with steel poles. They were set upon with bullets. There were magazines and casings on the boat that did not match any of the Israeli sidearms. It was tragic that that happened. It was sad that it happened. But it was almost entirely the decision of the people on that boat.

Now, I say almost entirely, because that boat did not just appear out of the ether. It didn't just appear out of thin air. It had an enormous amount of support by some of the worst enemies of peace in that region, and some of the worst enemies, quite literally, not only of Israel, but of the United States as well. And I mean Turkey, Iran, Hamas. These are not entities that were looking for some peaceful resolution here.

Remember, once again to reiterate, here in the Gaza Strip, when elections were held in Israel, Israel does not any longer occupy the West Bank or Gaza. They left. They left it to the Palestinian people. This part here, the West Bank, is run by the Palestinian Authority.

Many of my colleagues know Mahmoud Abbas was here in Washington today and met with the President. This is a place that's had a great deal of economic growth. There has been a reduction in the amount of violence coming out of the West Bank. There are still problems, and I still think it is outrageous we provide any aid to the West Bank or Gaza so long as Mahmoud Abbas refuses to engage in direct negotiations for peace.

But putting that aside for a moment, in this area here, not the Palestinian Authority or Fatah, but Hamas, the terrorist organization Hamas that is funded by Iran, that gets their weapons from Iran and is in a declared state of war with Israel, has said they don't support a two-state solution, they support a no-State of Israel solution.

Now, who is it that has been supporting that? Actually, it's not Egypt here. They have been working very hard to enforce the border that they have here and help to enforce the embargo. But it's basically Iran. Iran has been exporting terror here, not only here, by the way, but also up here to Hezbollah, to Nasrallah in Lebanon through their agent Syria. But that is why the blockade exists. It's not just because Israel wants conflict. Quite the opposite: it's to try to prevent essentially a war going on here with more and more rockets and more and more armaments coming on shore.

So when this embargo is enforced, it's not only protecting the people of Israel; it's protecting the United States, because this is a way that Iran wants to set up essentially what is an agent of their own in the Middle East. That's what they want.

So when the Israelis boarded the boat, they were set upon. The sailors were beaten. They were stabbed and shot, as I said. And when the dust settles, we had an opportunity, as all the world did, to see what was on that boat.

Let me tell you what the humanitarian aid was that was on that boat: 100 units of metal rods of various length--well, I am sure that was going to feed a lot of children; 200 knives of various sizes; 150 military-style and Turkish-produced self-defense vests, military-style; seven electric saws; 100 pipe wrenches; 50 wooden clubs; 20 axes; a telescopic sight for a gun; four night vision goggles; 100 diving lights; 150 head lamps; and of course boxes and boxes and boxes of propaganda and tapes, all of them in Turkish.

Now, if there was a true interest on the part of this boat of providing food or aid to the people of Gaza, I believe they had an opportunity, obviously, to go to Ashdod and drive it in. They did not want that.

So what is the correct response of the United States and the world community when confronted with these facts? Well, we have a couple of things. First of all, we should understand that even if we are the last country on Earth that understands the facts that I have been laying out here, even if we are the last country on Earth that understands the importance of Israel's role in the region and how they are set upon in a similar way that the United States was on September 11, except the difference is they have that every day, we should stand with Israel. Even if we are the last country on Earth saying it, we should say, look, the facts are the facts here.

As much as we would like to say Turkey is a player for peace here, no, they were a player for war here. And as much as we might like to say you know what, boy, I wish everyone would just get along in that region, it's Israel who is now sitting at the bargaining table for peace and the Palestinians who are refusing to do so.

But I think, my colleagues, we also have to consider something else, and that is all our relationships with some of the players who are behind us. Let's consider Turkey. This would not have happened were it not for the nation of Turkey taking the role that they did. They funded the ship. They provided international cover. The Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, IHH as it's known in Turkey, has been linked to Hamas, and they helped to fund this. The Turkish Government just today voted against sanctions on Iran because, hey, this is apparently an agent, a country that they would like to be an agent for.

And for a lot of time, we kind of worship at the altar of the moderate Muslim state, the moderate Arab states that, you know what, we hope that they are there to be a fulcrum for peace, but it's not unlike a child wanting to see a unicorn. It would be great

if it happened, but we have to realize the facts are the facts, and NATO membership for Turkey has to be called into question here. We have to start to say to ourselves whose side is Turkey really going to be on, because what they did here is, rather than being an instrument for peace where they could have very easily said, We're sponsoring this boat. Go to Ashdod right here and offload the humanitarian aid. Or, We're sponsoring this boat. We're not going to have cases of knives on board. We're going to have cases of baby food because we want to help the people of Gaza.

That hasn't happened. And we also have to realize something else, and then I want to yield to some of my colleagues who have joined me.

We have to realize that the default position of Europe and the Arab capitals of the world is always going to be against Israel. We can't allow that and that alone to be the determinant of whether or not, of how our foreign policy is prosecuted. There's a terrorist state that controls Gaza right now. It's a terrorist state that, if they could, they would destroy the United States of America tomorrow, and they're starting with Israel.

The gentleman from Connecticut has been a great leader on this issue. I will be glad to yield to him.

I appreciate his thoughts and his leadership on this.

Just to put it in further context of the relationship between the United States and Israel, this is a tiny town of Sderot that you mentioned in your remarks. In the period of time since Gaza has been controlled by Hamas, there have been 6,066 rockets fired from that area into Sderot, 4,434 mortars. And I ask my colleagues to envision your town, envision the district that you represent, envision this city being under that type of barrage from a specific place. Do you think a blockade would be an excessive step to take? And that's why it's so important that we stand here today, and it's particularly important that Leader Hoyer asked us to gather today to make these points.

And before I yield to anyone else, I want to yield to the majority leader of the House of Representatives, Steny Hoyer.

Well, I thank you, and before the majority leader leaves the floor, I think on behalf of all of us in this institution, long before you were the majority leader here, it was hard to think of a Member of the United States Congress in maybe anytime in the 62-year history of Israel that has had a stronger sense of commitment to the U.S.-Israel relationship than you, whether it was leading this body in a condemnation of the Goldstone Report, a one-sided document produced by the United Nations; leading this institution in support for Israel and, in fact, for the United States during the Gaza war.

It is important, that final note that you made about who Hamas is, they are an enemy of Israel for sure, but they're also an outpost for Iran. We have something very strong in common with Israel beyond just our common sense of democracy and culture. We have the common enemy that when this boat was traveling, it was traveling essentially doing the bidding of Iran, and we have to recognize that Israel is on the front line of what is essentially a threat to us.

I want to thank you on behalf of all of us who fight all the time to keep that Israel-United States relationship close for all that you have done in leading this institution.

It is also important that we recognize something else that the majority leader said about the use of human shields on that boat. There were probably some people on that boat who were completely without malice; although most of the loudest voices made it very clear that all of them that we heard seemed to want nothing more than conflict and more than having Israel wiped from the face of the Earth. But remember, when there was the war in Gaza, when there was the war in Lebanon, the one thing consistent about agents of Iran that they always do, these terrorist organizations, they're always using human shields. They're putting civilians and putting weapons in the neighborhoods of civilians all the time.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I thank you. The gentleman from Florida, I would be glad to yield to you.

I would say to the gentleman, I would actually argue that the military of Israel used such restraint. I mean, frankly, there aren't too many ways to stop a boat. One of the ways is to fire upon it. They chose to put their own sailors in jeopardy; although there should have been no reason to believe that they would be on a humanitarian boat. Why would anyone expect that someone aboard a humanitarian aid ship would be set upon?

You know, to some degree the media has to be on notice that there is some responsibility to report the context of this thing as well, not just the end. When you see a sailor being tossed overboard, you know, it didn't seem like a very humanitarian act, and there was a shameful display by Reuters, who recently published a photograph of the sailor, the Israeli soldier, that fell on the ground, and they cropped out the guy standing next to him with a knife to explain where all that blood came from. That knife was held by someone on this humanitarian aid ship.

No one knows these facts better than Jerrold Nadler from New York. I would be glad to yield to him at this time.

If the gentleman will yield for a moment, that's right here. It's not like they were being diverted somewhere far off.

Exactly.

Just so everyone understands the points that Mr. Nadler is making, this piece of real estate, about the size of New Jersey, now has a terrorist agent here in Gaza in the south; a terrorist agent up here in Lebanon, governed by Hezbollah, at least about 25 percent of its government is, and Nasrallah, and Hezbollah controls this area here; and a terrorist agent of Iran right here in Syria, which once upon a time controlled literally the mountaintop overlooking the country.

So what the gentleman is describing is terrorist, terrorist, terrorist functions, all in support of the same enemies of the United States, and that's Iran.

Well, the gentleman makes an excellent point. And the gentleman from Virginia, I know, is expert on these issues, as well. And it is important to understand that, just today, Mahmoud Abbas was in town.

And I would gladly yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nye), who has shown remarkable leadership on these issues in his brief time in the House, to pick up on some of the points that Mr. Nadler made.

Well, I thank you.

And you are exactly right. Our cooperation with the State of Israel has never been higher, in terms of military and intelligence.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of the Appropriations Committee, a powerful committee, who recently led a delegation to the Middle East which I was honored to be a part of. The House knows no stronger advocate for the U.S.-Israel relationship than she.

And I would point out, that same exact offer was made to this flotilla: Come to Ashdod right here. And it wasn't made an hour before; it was made 10 days before, as soon as the word got out, even before it had left port. The nation of Turkey, who was sponsoring this, and the sponsors of the boat were told, ``Listen, just go right here, and we will take a look at what you have, and then we will escort it militarily into Gaza for you.''

I thank the gentlewoman. And as someone who represents south Florida, you know that if a boat came churning towards the coast, and let's say it came from Yemen, and it had people on it who were chanting ``Death to Floridians,'' and it wouldn't stop when the military offered it an opportunity to, we would certainly not, as Americans, expect to say, ``Okay, we will just see what happens when it reaches shore.'' You are exactly right to point out the necessity of stopping it in international waters. That's where blockades happen.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), who also understands these issues and, long before she even came to this body, was fighting to preserve the Israel-United States relationship.

I thank the gentlewoman. And I really want to apologize for interrupting you.

Perhaps the most important fighter for Israel in this institution is the chairwoman of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey). I'm glad to recognize you.

If the gentleman would briefly yield, I, too, want to add my thanks to you. I don't know if they have C-SPAN in Israel, but sometimes it's easy in that little country to feel beset on all sides. We share the same common sense that they do, that they're victims of terror, and I want to thank you.

We disagree on a lot in this place--and you're going to spend the next hour or so pointing out some of those things--but there are some things that have broad bipartisan support, and the support of Israel is one of those things, and I want to thank you for being at the forefront of that.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize exceptional work of the staff of the Bay News, a newspaper that serves southern Brooklyn, in honor of its 65th anniversary.

Though the hard-hitting reporters at the Bay News cover issues that affect all New Yorkers, they specialize in local news that focuses on the neighborhoods of Bensonhurst, Brighton Beach, Coney Island, Gerritsen Beach, Gravesend, Manhattan Beach, Seagate and Sheepshead Bay. It's not an exaggeration to say that if something happens in this part of the City, the Bay News will know about it.

The groundwork for what is now the Bay News was first established in 1944 when Charlie Peterson started printing the ``Sheepshead Bay Service News'', a newsletter for the families of troops serving overseas in World War II. Over the years, that small newsletter merged with other local papers from across the borough to become what is now a publication with a circulation of more than 15,000.

As my staff knows, my Thursdays don't truly begin until I've read the Bay News. This storied publication has been on the scene for all of the defining moments that have shaped New York City over the past 65 years, and I know that it will be there for whatever happens next.

Day in and day out, week after week, The Bay News covers everything from local community board meetings to arts and movies to national politics. As I know firsthand, the paper's reporters aren't afraid to ask the tough questions. They work tirelessly to provide the community with the news and information that is so vital to a robust democracy and the civic life we take for granted.

That is why I am pleased and honored to congratulate the entire staff of the Bay News on all their success and contributions on the occasion of the paper's 65th anniversary and I wish them all many successful years to come. We should commend editor Vince DiMiceli, publisher Clifford Luster; assistant editors Shavana Abruzzo, Joanna Del Buono, Meredith Deliso, Courtney Donahue; calendar editor Erica Sherman; reporters Thomas Tracy and Joe Maniscalco; vice president of advertising Ralph D'Onofrio; classified manager Amanda Tarley; and production manager Keith Oechsner.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Christ the King Regional High School's boys and girls basketball teams on the occasion of the New York State Federation Class AA championships. Christ the King has made history in New York State by becoming the first high school to win both boys and girls Federation Basketball Tournament of Champions titles in the same year. This is an extremely difficult feat that deserves our recognition.

Christ the King's Royals and Lady Royals are renowned basketball teams not only in New York City, but throughout the country. Some of the National Basketball Association's and Women's National Basketball Association's best players, such as Lamar Odom, Tina Charles, and Speedy Claxton attended this fine high school located in Middle Village, Queens and played on its great basketball teams. The Class AA championship was the third for the Royals. First they won the Brooklyn- Queens diocesan crown and then swept the city championships. The Lady Royals have won a record 14 championships.

I would like to recognize this season's champions. Maurice Barrow, Roland Brown, Omar Calhoun, T.J. Curry, Corey Edwards, Terrel Hunt, Optimystic Kinard, Justin Kirkland, Dominykas Milka, Khadim Ndiaye, Edson Silva, Kareem Thomas, Mike Thompson, and Aaron Williams led the Royals to a record of 26-5. Ariel Page, Tara Rock, Jacqueline Michel, Nia Oden, Jacqueline Mullen, Lauren Nuss, Ariel Edwards, Sasha Santamaria, Bria Smith, Sarah Shanderson, Jessica Wasserfall, Rayne Connell, and Quincey Martin-Chapmen led the Lady Royals to a record of 26-5. I would also like to extend my congratulations to Joe Arbitello and Bob Mackey, the coaches of the Royals and Lady Royals.

Christ the King opened its doors in 1962 and has set a record of excellence not only in athletics, but also in academics. In its 48-year history, it has provided thousands of Queens' youth with an exemplary education. Additionally, its commitment to serving the neighboring communities of Middle Village and Glendale has made Christ the King one of the most esteemed institutions in New York City.

I am pleased to congratulate the Royals and the Lady Royals on the occasion of their championships and wish them many successful seasons to come.

I rise to pay tribute to Clarence Lumpkin. This is a great day for the State of Ohio. The mayor of Linden deserves to have a post office named for him for all his service.

I do hate to pollute this debate with facts. I am really almost hesitant to do so. The previous speaker pointed out an inequity that exists that, frankly, Medicaid doctors don't get reimbursed enough. We are fixing that in the reconciliation bill, so I trust my colleague will be voting for that, because it increases the reimbursement rates for people that we are expanding coverage to so that doctors get paid at the Medicare rate.

Do you know what you won't hear today in this conversation about the post office? Is that Mr. Lumpkin, who we are honoring today, I think is about 70 years old.

Certainly. We don't have a lot.

Reclaiming my time to inform the gentleman that he is wrong.

No. After yielding, it wasn't much of a payoff.

It wasn't much of a payoff.

Mr. Lumpkin, who we are honoring today, if it were up to the members of the minority party, Mr. Lumpkin would not have Medicare, would he? He would have had Social Security privatized.

Now, I couldn't help noticing that not long ago the ranking minority member of the House Budget Committee, a Republican, floated a plan that for once, at least, was honest about the intentions of the Republicans. It said, Cut off Medicare. End it as a program we know. And I know that the previous speaker doesn't like it. A lot of my constituents believe it is a very worthy program. Ninety-six percent of all beneficiaries who were surveyed last year said they like it. But the Republicans say, No, we want to eliminate it.

And let's not forget how many of them signed on the dotted line to privatize Social Security. Boy, that seems smart, huh? Investing Social Security in the stock market. Now, that is a far-reaching idea.

Now, Mr. Lumpkin, who, God willing, will live another 20, 25 more years, he is going to be able to see Medicare for the rest of his life, thanks to the bill we are going to pass in short order, and no thanks to the votes of the people on the other side of the aisle who would deny him that.

Now, you may not like Medicare, but come out and say it. Don't say we are going to propose privatizing it. Let's see what you do. Can you get a majority over there to stand up, to come out from behind the artifice and to say--forgive me. Will the Speaker ask----

Look, the fact of the matter is there are differences of opinion here and they are philosophical and deep felt. We believe in Medicare; we created it. You opposed it at the time; you oppose it now. We support Social Security.

I would direct my remarks to the Speaker. Can you inform them that they opposed Social Security then; they oppose it now.

This is a philosophical divide. And every single member of the minority party has said that they are going to do anything they can to stand up in defense of the health insurance industry. That is a consistent position. We disagree with it, and Mr. Lumpkin is going to have Medicare for the rest of his life, which should be long.

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.

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.

I don't yield for that purpose.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

I would request unanimous consent to substitute other words.

I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my words.

How much time do I have remaining?

Make no mistake about it: . . .

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

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. 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.

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. 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.

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

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.