Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Robert C. Messina, Jr., as he enters his 25th year of visionary leadership as President of Burlington County College.

During Dr. Messina's leadership, Burlington County College has grown substantially, now educating more than 11,000 students per year. The College received 22 commendations in its recent reaccreditation by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, more than any other college in New Jersey. Their recent achievements are a strong reflection of Dr. Messina's tireless efforts. His work has benefitted the entire South Jersey community, enriching residents' quality of life through sponsorship of cultural and regional activities.

Dr. Robert C. Messina, Jr. should also be recognized as a humanitarian. He frequently

volunteers his time on local, regional, state, and national boards and committees related to improving higher education. His dedication to exceptional and accessible educational opportunities makes him a role model to Burlington County and the rest of the country.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Robert C. Messina, Jr.'s commitment to Burlington County College and the local community merits recognition. I commend him for his achievements, and extend sincere best wishes in all his future endeavors as he enters his 25th year as president of Burlington County College.

There is no question that the country has to reduce the deficit by restraining spending. That's why we favor having Medicare get the same deal on prescription drugs the VA does--which would save $24 billion a year.

But there is a question about the future of Medicare. And today we're going to take a vote. Will Medicare prosper or perish? Will Medicare survive or die? That's the issue before the House today.

The fact is the Republican plan puts an insurance company between our seniors and their doctors--and that is wrong. The fact is that the Republican plan does not reduce health care costs. Hospitals will not charge less. Doctors will not charge less. The government will pay less, and seniors will pay more--$6,000 per senior per year.

The fact is that this is all being done not to reduce the deficit, but to reduce taxes of the wealthiest people in America. The fact is we should not have this.

And the fact is this: We can have an America that doesn't have red ink in its budget but does have Medicare for its seniors.

Let's make the choice that our constituents sent us here to make. Yes, let's sensibly reduce spending--as we did yesterday on a bipartisan basis. But this is the wrong time to end Medicare. We will fight this effort, and we will prevail.

Madam Speaker, we need to work together to change America, to stop borrowing so much money and jeopardizing the future of our country. We agree on that.

But it's important that we understand that it's not the way to do that to end Medicare, and here is what ending Medicare means to the seniors and disabled people of this country. Today, if a person on Medicare has a medical problem, they choose their doctor. The doctor and the patient decide what should happen next and Medicare pays the lion's share of the bill. This is a system that works for America's seniors and works for America's disabled.

How do the Republicans want to change Medicare and end Medicare? This is what they want to do.

You won't choose your doctor, the insurance company will. If a doctor decides that a certain test or procedure is necessary, he or she will have to ask the insurance company's permission to get that test done. And the bill won't be paid by Medicare. The bill will be paid by the insurance company when they feel like it, if they feel like it, for the amount that it should.

The Congressional Budget Office has looked at this issue at the request of Chairman Ryan and concluded that by the end of the implementation of this plan, seniors will pay an extra $6,000 a year out of pocket for health care expenses: $6,000 a year, $500 a month, $125 a week, beyond what they are paying right now for health care.

We will stand for Medicare. We will not stand for this budget. We will defeat it.

Mr. Speaker, on the vote for H. Con. Res. 35 and H. Con. Res. 36, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I rise in favor of the commonsense compromise that says to the operating departments of our government, ``See if you can get by on 95 percent of the money you had last year.'' I think that makes good sense, and I commend Chairman Rogers and Mr. Dicks for making sure that Pell Grants, title I, special education are fully funded and protected and, frankly, salute both sides for leaving aside extraneous matters like not funding Planned Parenthood and not funding the health care bill. I think this is a worthy compromise. I'm glad to support it.

I do want to note my grave concern with the rule and the rather ambiguous position we find ourselves in with respect to the actions of the Senate. About 10 days ago, the majority attempted to pass a bill where the Senate would never have to act. Now they want to say, even if the House and the Senate have both acted, apparently the bill doesn't become law. Maybe we should have put a few more education funds in for constitutional studies here because I think this is very unwise and, frankly, ambiguous. So I'm going to oppose the rule on the grounds that this very novel idea of giving the Clerk of the House the instructions not to enroll a bill that's been passed by both House and Senate I think is very troubling.

Having said that, I think that the underlying bill merits the support of both Republicans and Democrats and I will be voting ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, as we meet this morning, the top priority of the American people continues to be the jobs crisis in our country. There are too many people out of work and too many people worried that they are next.

Last week, the welcome news came that last month the economy had created about a quarter of a million new private sector jobs. That's a good start, but it's not nearly enough. Shutting the government down just when the economy is starting to get back on its feet would be the worst possible mistake, but we're on the verge of that.

It's important that people understand that the President has gone three-quarters of the way toward the majority party to settle this matter--didn't meet halfway; he has gone three-quarters of the way--but they won't go the full way because there is a fight here about values. This is a fight about what you value.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we value Medicare. We believe that after someone has worked their entire life and paid taxes into that Medicare fund that they should not have to worry that a trip to the radiologist will be followed by a trip to the bankruptcy court. This is what Medicare accomplished for our moms and our dads and our grandparents. It said that after a lifetime of hard work, if you have medical worries, they will just be medical worries, not financial worries, because Medicare will pay the bill.

The gentleman from California talked about how they're not destroying Medicare; they're saving it. Let's talk about what they're really doing. Here's what happens:

Today, if a senior goes to the radiologist of her choice, Medicare pays most of the bill and she pays a little bit of it. She decides what doctor to pick. She and the doctor decide what happens next, and no private insurance company gets in the way. Medicare pays the bill.

What they are proposing is to end that system. So now what will happen under their plan is that the taxes that we pay into the Medicare fund will all be paid to health insurance companies. So we will trust the good hands that so gently guide our health care in the health care industry. We will give them the money, all of it, and trust them to do the right thing with the health of America's senior citizens. That is the wrong thing to do with the health of America's senior citizens.

There is a fight here about values. It's a fight that shouldn't take place. We should settle the budget fight. The President has gone three- quarters of the way to the Republican proposal. Settle it today on that basis. But by all means, we will never yield, we will

never concede, we will never concede the point that Medicare should be replaced by private insurance companies.

The Congressional Budget Office has said, in analyzing Chairman Ryan's proposal, that the out-of-pocket health care costs for most retirees in America will go up. This isn't spending reform. This is having someone else pick up the tab. The hospitals aren't going to charge less. The doctors aren't going to charge less. The senior is going to pay more to get that coverage, and he or she is going to have to go ask permission from an insurance company as to what radiologist they can see. Then the radiologist will have to ask permission for what test he or she can order.

Medicare is not perfect, but it works. We should preserve it and defeat the underlying bill.

Mr. Dicks has the right idea.

What we ought to vote on today is a 1-week extension that's clean, that just gets that done and keeps everybody going in the government, including the military, and then we should resolve our differences. I think that's what we ought to be doing this morning, but what's standing in the way of that is this values debate that I talked about earlier.

Look, it's a position that we understand, which is that the majority party does not want to continue Medicare as

we've known it for all these years. We strongly disagree with them, and we are prepared to have the fight to say why America needs Medicare as it has always been; but that disagreement should not shut the government down; that disagreement over values should not mean that the functions that people have paid for in their taxes don't go forward. Let's not shut the government down over this values debate. Let's have the values debate as the government continues to operate, and by all means, let's protect Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 229 on a motion to adjourn, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker on rollcall No. 230 on ordering the previous question (H.R. 910), I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker on rollcall No. 231 on H. Res. 203, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker on rollcall No. 232 on the Journal, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 225 for H.R. 1246, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor twelve members of the South Jersey community who received awards at the Living Legends Torch Bearers' Awards Program. These leaders of the African-American community dedicated years of educational, cultural, and religious service to South Jersey. Assemblyman Gilbert ``Whip'' Wilson, Bryson C. Armstead, Spencer Moore, Joyce Gilchrist-Pierce, Ruben Britt Jr., Beverly Collins-Roberts, Martha Chavis, Claudia Cream, Dr. Stella Horton, Dr. Ralph Hunter, Wilbert Mitchell, and Rev. John O. Parker Jr. deserve to be recognized for their hard work and dedication to the South Jersey community.

Assemblyman Gilbert ``Whip'' Wilson is a lifelong resident of Camden County and has dedicated his life to service, first in the Air Force, where he was awarded with several medals. He then served as a member of the Camden Police Department and rose to the rank of lieutenant. After his retirement, he was on the Camden City Council, until he was appointed to the New Jersey Assembly.

Two other honorees were also veterans. Bryson C. Armstead served in the Navy during World War II. He was a driving force behind the restoration of the Mount Peace Cemetery, and its placement on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. Spencer Moore served in World War II as was a member of the 92nd Infantry Division. He saw combat in Italy and received a Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Combat Infantry Badge.

The other individuals that were honored with awards were: Joyce Gilchrist-Pierce, first female mayor of Camden; Ruben Britt Jr., author and current Assistant Director of Career and Academic Planning at Rowan University; Beverly Collins-Roberts, award-winning photographer, filmmaker and historian; Martha Chavis, a community leader and adjunct professor at several colleges; Claudia Cream, principal of Parkside Elementary school in Camden; Dr. Stella Horton, executive director of the Camden Center for Youth Development; historian Dr. Ralph Hunter, founder of the African American Heritage Museum in Newtonville; Wilbert Mitchell, executive director of RESPOND, a Camden-based educational and social services organization; and Rev. John O. Parker Jr., Pastor of Camden's Antioch Baptist Church.

Mr. Speaker, the commitment of these individuals to the South Jersey community should not go unrecognized. I express my deepest appreciation for their dedication and unwavering service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Margaret Marsh, Outgoing Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and Distinguished Professor of History for her service to Rutgers-Camden University. After thirteen years of exemplary leadership, she is stepping down as Dean and re-joining the faculty.

Ms. Marsh earned her undergraduate degree from Rutgers-Camden University and later received her PhD in history from Rutgers-New Brunswick in 1974. Ms. Marsh distinguished herself as a leader, holding positions as professor, chair, and Dean within two different institutions of higher learning. Ms. Marsh was professor and Chair of the History Department at Temple University in 1997, then went on to become Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Rutgers-Camden in 1998. After becoming Dean, Ms. Marsh earned a reputation as a renowned expert in women's history, gender history, American cultural history, and the connections between gender and medicine. Her award-winning research on these topics was funded by a multi-year grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. She has shared these findings over the last thirty years, publishing several books, articles, and essays.

During her tenure, Ms. Marsh has worked to expand educational opportunities for students. Thanks to her dedicated leadership, Rutgers launched the nation's first PhD program in childhood studies and created new PhD programs in public affairs and computational and integrative biology. Ms. Marsh also presided over the Faculty of Arts and Sciences increasing its support for its endowment fund by over 800%. This increase produced more scholarships for students in need and funded more faculty research programs.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Margaret Marsh on her career as Dean. Ms. Marsh has made a lasting impact on Rutgers' faculty and students, and I am inspired by her dedication and leadership to the university.

Mr. Speaker, for those of us who've known John for a long time and who have loved and cherished him, this is a very tragic and difficult occasion. I hope that Shelley and his boys know, in the depths of their grief, the breadth of love and respect for John that people feel tonight.

His loss is tragic beyond words, but we can, for a moment, celebrate a victory over tragedy tonight that one person in 51 brief years could touch the lives and achieve the achievements that John Adler did in his life. His life was far too short, but it was rich, it was filled with laughter and achievement, and those of us who have been touched by his friendship count ourselves richer for the benefit of that.

May God bless his family and rest his soul.

Madam Speaker, as the week ends, there is the welcomed news that American employers added 216,000 jobs. But this is still a night for 15 million people where they didn't get one of those jobs, and it is going to be another sleepless night, another Friday without a paycheck. And what did the majority in the House of Representatives do about that this week?

Well, early in the week they took a bill to cancel out a program that helps people that are trying to keep their homes and pay their bills out of foreclosure. Then we spent a day pretending we were the District of Columbia board of education debating about how the D.C. schools should be organized. Today is going to be capped off by debating a bill that any fifth grader would understand is unconstitutional because it does not require the House and the Senate to act.

There are serious discussions going on about what we ought to do in this country, but the most serious thing we ought to do is work together to create an environment so that entrepreneurs, large and small, could create jobs. Instead, what we are doing is wasting yet another week, this is week 14, yet another day, yet another session, having a fairly superficial political discussion about a bill that simply isn't constitutional and doesn't make any sense.

Why don't we put on the floor a bill that reduces the deficit, cuts the subsidies to the oil companies, and puts some of the money into putting Americans back to work building clean water systems and roads and schools? Why don't we do that?

At a minimum, what we are going to do today is vote for something I do support. If there is a government shutdown, and I sure hope there isn't, we shouldn't get paid either. We can agree on that. Let's put that on the floor. But, for goodness' sake, can't there come a day in this House when we actually work together on a jobs bill, instead of another week of failure?

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend, and I thank him for his passion.

I thought I heard the gentleman say a minute ago that every job created in the public sector sucks away money that could create a private sector job. Did the gentleman say that?

Well, if the gentleman will yield, I would ask him if he would apply that definition to our people in the military.

Will the gentleman yield?

Would the gentleman say that people who are FBI or DEA agents are sucking money out of the Treasury that could be used for private sector jobs?

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I appreciate my friend. I would just, with all due respect, say it is not an instruction book; it's an owner's manual. And the owner's manual, the Constitution, says for a bill to become law, the House has to pass it and the Senate has to pass it. That is why this bill is unconstitutional.

I thank my friend from South Carolina.

Madam Speaker, there was some good news today, finally, that 214,000 Americans went to work last month. That is not nearly good enough. There is a lot more work to do. One of the ways to do that work is to come to a responsible agreement on the Federal budget. I am hopeful there will be such an agreement next week that sensibly reduces spending but protects education; that leaves to another day fights over whether to repeal health care. We believe we shouldn't; the other side believes we should. Whether or not to defund planned parenthood. We believe we shouldn't; most of the other side believes that we should.

Leave those discussions to another day and keep the government functioning, because the taxpayers will keep paying taxes even if there is a government shutdown. They pay even if they don't get the services.

So what are we doing this afternoon? What we are doing this afternoon is looking at a bill that on its face is unconstitutional. And the reason we are looking at this bill is so that Members of the majority side, who probably won't vote for the budget compromise next week, can say they did something. Well, doing something that is unconstitutional is wrong.

As Mr. Clyburn read, article I, section 7 says: ``Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President.''

Article I, section 5 of the Constitution says, ``Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.''

``Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.''

What is wrong with this bill is that one House, our House, is determining the rules of the other House's, the Senate's, proceedings. You can't do that. It is a pretty simple concept.

I have heard all the convoluted arguments on the other side. I have heard all the twisted rationalizations. It comes down to this: If this afternoon the Senate passed a budget that our friends on the majority side don't like and said, if our friends on the majority side don't pass that budget in a week it becomes law, they wouldn't agree to that, because they would know that it is unconstitutional. This is the same thing.

It is ironic that with great fanfare on the first week of this session, after running a campaign saying they would produce jobs, what the majority produced was a reading of the Constitution on this floor. I thought it was appropriate. I thought it was actually moving and the right thing to do.

The wrong thing to do is to ignore what we read the first week. ``Each House may determine the rules of its proceeding.'' We can't determine the rules of proceeding for the Senate. They can't determine the rules of proceeding for us.

This is a bad bill. Vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I think that we need to reiterate that we just had a very principled statement from the gentleman from Texas, and I think we have a chance to rise above the normal partisanship.

The gentleman from Texas on the majority side just said he agrees with the proposition that the bill is unconstitutional, and I would urge Members, Madam Speaker, to listen to that example of principle. We don't agree on all things, but we should all rise to honor our oath of office and to oppose this bill based purely upon constitutional grounds.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Eve Biskind Klothen for her outstanding accomplishments as Assistant Dean for Pro Bono and Public Interest Programs at Rutgers School of Law--Camden.

Dean Klothen was honored by Philadelphia VIP for her contributions to the non-profit legal community on March 9, 2011. Philadelphia VIP is a regional legal organization that provides free legal services to low income clients by recruiting and training volunteer lawyers to handle pro bono cases.

Dean Klothen earned her undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and her J.D. from the Vanderbilt University School of Law. Prior to joining the staff of Rutgers, she worked in legal services in Georgia and as a federal agency fraud litigator in Washington, D.C. Dean Klothen also served as the founding director of Philadelphia Volunteers for the Indigent and as director of the Philadelphia Bar Foundation.

Since 2002, Dean Klothen has advanced and expanded the portfolio of pro bono and public interest programs at the Rutgers School of Law-- Camden. Under her tenure, Rutgers--Camden law students and recent graduates have earned national accolades for their work in public interest law, including fellowships from Equal Justice Works, the Independence Foundation, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute.

Her other professional activities include appointments to the Federal Judicial Nominating Commission for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Civil Justice Advisory Committee for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania United States District Court. Dean Klothen is also a member, and served a year as chair of the University of Pennsylvania Law School Public Service Advisory Committee. She also serves on the boards of City Year Greater Philadelphia and MAZON: a Jewish Response to Hunger.

Dean Klothen's tireless efforts on behalf of the greater Philadelphia community have not gone unrecognized. Among the variety of awards she has been presented with are the Father Robert Drinan Award for Outstanding Public Service by the AALS; the Pro Bono Coordinator of the Year Award by the National Association of Pro Bono Coordinators, the Equal Justice Award by Community Legal Services in Philadelphia, the Outstanding Service Award by the Pennsylvania Bar Association, and the Excellence Award by Pennsylvania Legal Services.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor Eve Biskind Klothen and thank her for her pro bono and public service accomplishments on behalf of the greater Philadelphia community.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, some of the 15 million unemployed Americans no doubt got together with some of their friends this morning around a kitchen table and talked about another fruitless day of job searching, another sleepless night, another paycheckless Friday that's coming. And I wonder, Madam Speaker, what they would think about what's going on on the floor of this House today. At a time when there are 15 million Americans out of work, the House majority has decided to pretend that it is the District of Columbia Board of Education.

Now, there are profound issues about the quality of schools for children in the District of Columbia. I would be guided by their elected representative, Ms. Holmes Norton, who speaks for them but tragically does not have the right to vote on their behalf. She should have that right. But beyond that, what are we doing?

This is a time when Americans are struggling and suffering and losing their homes. What we should be doing is coming together, Republicans and Democrats, on this floor to create an environment where entrepreneurs and small businesses can create jobs for the American people.

We have a proposal on the floor right now that would say the following: Let's stop China from unfairly manipulating its currency that puts American manufacturers at a disadvantage.

It is estimated that 1 million manufacturing jobs could be added in this country if the Chinese were made to stop their unfair practice of discriminating and manipulating currency. Now, you may think that's a good idea or a bad idea. I think it's a good idea. But why don't we take a vote on that instead of how to run the District of Columbia Public Schools? That's a question that the voters of the District of Columbia should decide for themselves. What we ought to decide is to get our act together and get Americans back to work.