Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, for over a year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has been working on literally a non- stop basis on this legislation.

Their objective non-partisan analysis is critical to us as we develop legislation. I want to thank Director Elmendorf and all at CBO for their service to Congress in providing analysis and budget estimates on this legislation.

In addition, we held a markup last week on Monday that ran until nearly midnight. The House Budget Committee staff and staff in my personal office spent last weekend, all this past week, and this weekend working on this legislation. I want to thank them for their work on this legislation. A list of the staff appears below.

House Budget Committee Republican Staff

Tim Flynn (Chief Economist); Chauncey Goss (Deputy Staff

Director); Matt Hoffman (Legislative Director, Office of

Congressman Ryan); Charlotte Ivancic (Counsel and Budget

Analyst); Patrick L. Knudsen (Policy Director); Angela Kuck

(Communications Director); John Gray (Budget Analyst); Jim

Herz (Budget Analyst and Budget Review); Courtney Reinhard

(Counsel and Budget Analyst); Paul Restuccia (Chief Counsel

and Budget Analyst); Jonathan Romito (Budget Analyst and

Executive Assistant); Austin Smythe (Staff Director); Conor

Sweeney (Deputy Communications Director); Dennis Teti (Senior

Advisor); Dana Wade (Budget Analyst); and Ted McCann (Budget

Analyst).

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1203 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, let me just quote from a letter to the Speaker of the House by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office dated yesterday: ``The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the total cost of those mandates to State, local and tribal governments and the private sector would greatly exceed the annual thresholds established under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the mother of all unfunded mandates. There are mandates on States. The new Medicaid mandate is expected to cost, according to the CBO, an additional $20 billion on States. Let's start with the State mandate, $20 billion on States in Medicaid. Democratic Governors have been speaking out against this. Let me quote Governor Rendell from Pennsylvania: ``I think it's an unfunded mandate. We just don't have the wherewithal to absorb this health care bill without some new revenue source.''

There is an individual mandate. It mandates individuals purchase government-approved health insurance or face a fine to be collected by the IRS which will need $10 billion additional and 16,500 new IRS agents to police and enforce this mandate.

There is a business mandate. It mandates businesses provide government-approved health insurance or face penalties. If you don't offer health insurance coverage, you have to pay $2,000 per employee. If you do offer health insurance coverage, but one of your employees decides to take the Federal subsidy, you have to pay up to $3,000 per employee anyway.

There's a health plan mandate. There are mandates on health plans to comply with new Federal benefits, mandates without any funds to meet these new requirements. There are new medical loss ratios of 80 and 85 percent. This hardly jives with the notion, If you like what you have, you can keep it, because millions of Americans will exactly lose just that.

There's a provider mandate. This mandates that many health care providers must actually provide exactly what Washington says. They're forced to take unilateral reimbursement cuts from the new independent payment advisory board.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to elaborate quite a bit more, but I will reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire how much time is remaining between the two sides, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the fiscal consequences of this bill. I think we're going to hear a lot today how this bill reduces the deficit according to the Congressional Budget Office. Well, I would simply say, the oldest trick in the book in Washington is that you can manipulate a piece of legislation to manipulate the final score that comes out.

But let's take a look at the subsequent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. Let's take a look at the claims being made and the reality that we're facing. This bill double-counts billions of dollars. It takes $70 billion of premiums from the CLASS Act to spend on this new government program, instead of going to the CLASS Act. It takes $53 billion in Social Security taxes which are reserved for Social Security and, instead, spends it on this new program. The Congressional Budget Office is telling us that in order to fulfill all the discretionary requirements, $71 billion will be required to manage this new government-run health care system. They're saying at the Congressional Budget Office that Medicare part A trust fund, the trust fund itself will be raided to the tune of $398 billion.

So if we actually count a dollar once, which is how law in math works, this bill has a $454 billion deficit. I find it very interesting and noteworthy that just 2 days ago, the Speaker of the House said, We will be passing legislation in April, doing the so-called doc fix. Well, that's $208 billion. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, when that will pass, combined with the double-counting and the gimmicks and the smoke and mirrors, we will have a $662 billion deficit under this bill alone.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's think about the economic consequences because the economic consequences that will be borne by this bill are truly horrific. People are losing jobs in this country. Our unemployment rate is near 10 percent. For us to get our unemployment rate back to where it was before the economic crisis, back to 5 percent, we will literally have to create 250,000 jobs every month for 5 years in this Nation. So what does this bill do? It imposes a new tax increase of $569.2 billion, over half a trillion in new taxes on labor, on capital, on families, on small businesses, on work, on jobs.

And look at what we're looking at. Before even passing this bill, Mr. Speaker, we are going into a tidal wave of red ink of debt. The interest alone on the national debt that's about to befall us will be crushing to our economy. I asked the Congressional Budget Office, what would my three children face

when they were my age? What we heard from the CBO was just alarming. By the time my three kids are my age--I am 40 and they're 5, 6 and 8 years old--the CBO said that the glide path that we are on before passing this bill, the tax rate on that generation by the time they're 40 years old will be that the 10 percent bracket goes up to 25 percent, middle- income taxpayers will pay an income tax rate of 63 percent, and the top rate that the small businesses pay will be 88 percent. This is the legacy we are leaving the next generation.

Last year the General Accountability Office said that the unfunded liability of the Federal Government--meaning the debt we owe to all the promises being made--was $62 trillion. You know what they say today, $76 trillion. And what are we doing here? A $2.4 trillion new unfunded entitlement on top all of that. We can't even afford the government we've got right now, and we're going to be putting this new unfunded entitlement on top of it?

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, though, what's most insidious, what's most concerning, what's most troubling about this bill is what the future holds. This bill subscribes to the arrogant idea that Washington knows best, that Washington can organize and micromanage the entire health care sector of this country, 17 percent of our economy, one-sixth of our economy.

Well, let me give you a glimpse into that future, Mr. Speaker. This is the Treasury's 2009 financial report. It tells us that we are walking into an ocean of red ink, of debt, of deficit, of spending. And the only way to get this under control, the only way to stop a debt crisis from befalling this country--much like Europe is about to walk into--if you have government-run health care, if you have the government take the rest of the health care sector over is to deeply and systematically ration health care.

Think about what's in this legislation. We have a new comparative effectiveness research board placed in the stimulus legislation that decides what treatments are worth paying for. We have a new Medicare commission called the Independent Payment Advisory Board that makes across-the-board cuts into Medicare whether it's good for patients or not based upon cost considerations, bypassing the authority of Congress. And we have the new U.S. Preventive Task Force. That's an agency that recently said women in their forties don't need to do mammograms, that has been given unprecedented power in this legislation to make decisions that are normally made by patients and doctors.

What this bill does is it says this: we are no longer going to trust the will, the interest, and the decisions of patients and their doctors. They don't know enough. We're going to take the power and the money from the citizens and bring it to Washington, and Washington knows best. Washington will set up elaborate boards and bureaucracies of technocrats who can better micromanage those decisions. And the only way to get this debt crisis only control, the only way to get this under control is to ration care.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better. It doesn't have to be

this way. This is not democracy. This is not good government. One of the cornerstone principles of this Nation that the Founders created is the principle that we govern by consent of the governed. That principle is being turned on its head here today.

More to the point, the shame of all of this is we have been offering constructive solutions from the very beginning. We have asked you to work with us on a bipartisan basis, step by step, piece by piece, work on the uninsured, work on preexisting conditions, work on costs, work on prices, work on the deficit. All along the other side said ``no,'' we are doing it our way, one-party rule.

This bill clearly violates the House rules. We shouldn't be waiving our own rules and imposing these costly mandates. We are going to hear many emotional appeals today. Let me tell you a little bit about my own. I have the best mother-in-law a man could ever ask for. She is 5 years facing stage 3 ovarian cancer, and she is still fighting it because of a drug called Avastin that is keeping her alive. Well, if she was a British citizen, she wouldn't have it because they deny this drug to their cancer patients. We are setting up the identical same bureaucracies they have there here.

This bill explodes the deficit, it explodes the debt, and the only way to fix it is to put that kind of rationing in place. That is not what our government should be doing. This bill is a fiscal Frankenstein. It is a government takeover. It is not democratic.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, it is not too late to get it right. Let's start over, let's defeat this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the vice ranking

member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield myself the remainder of our Budget Committee time.

Mr. Speaker, there's a lot wrong with this bill. We know the problems with its costs. We know it doesn't really reduce the deficit. We know premiums are going to go up. The CBO has given us all this information and it's clear that we have a bill that is chock full of gimmicks and hidden mandates. I'm not going to get into all of that again, but what I want to ask is this: Why has this decision become so personal to our constituents? Why are so many people swarming the Capitol today? Why have we received a hundred thousand calls an hour from around the country? It's because health care affects every one of us. And yet, here we are, debating whether the government should have a bigger role in making those personal decisions.

So make no mistake about it. We are not just here to pass a health care bill. We are being asked to make a choice about the future path of this country. The speakers to my left are correct: this is history. Today marks a major turning point in American history. This is really not a debate about prices, coverage, or choosing doctors. This is ultimately about what kind of country we are going to be in the 21st century.

America is not just a nationality. It's not just a massive land from Hawaii to Maine, from Wisconsin to Florida. America is an idea. It's the most pro-human idea ever designed by mankind. Our Founders got it right when they wrote in the Declaration of Independence that our rights come from nature and nature's God--not from government.

Should we now subscribe to an ideology where government creates rights, is solely responsible for delivering these artificial rights, and then systematically rations these rights?

Do we believe that the goal of government is to promote equal opportunity for all Americans to make the most of their lives, or do we now believe the government's role is to equalize the results of people's lives?

The philosophy advanced on this floor by this majority today is so paternalistic and so arrogant. It's condescending, and it tramples upon the principles that have made America so exceptional.

My friends, we are fast approaching a tipping point where more Americans depend upon the Federal Government than upon themselves for their livelihoods, a point where we, the American people, trade in our commitment and our concern for individual liberties in exchange for government benefits and dependences.

More to the point, Mr. Speaker, we have seen this movie before, and we know how it ends. The European-style social welfare state promoted by this legislation is not sustainable. This is not who we are and it is not who we should become.

As we march toward this tipping point of dependency, we are also accelerating toward a debt crisis; a debt crisis that is the result of the politicians of the past making promises we simply cannot afford to keep. Deja vu all over again. It's unconscionable what we are leaving the next generation.

This moment may mark a temporary conclusion of the health care debate, but its place in history has not yet been decided. If this passes, the request to reclaim the American idea is not over. The fight to reapply our founding principles is not finished. It is just a steeper hill to climb, and it is a climb that we will make.

On this issue, more than any other issue we have ever seen here, the American people are engaged. From our town hall meetings to Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts, you have made your voices heard and some of us are listening to you.

My colleagues, let's bring down this bill and bring back the ideas that made this country great.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of Alyson Dudek, a native of Hales Corners, Wisconsin, who along with her teammates--Lana Gehring, Katherine Reutter, and Allison Baver--won the bronze medal in the 3000-meter short track relay at the 2010 Winter Olympics.

This performance ended a sixteen-year medal drought for the United States in the event and Alyson's impressive effort was another memorable instance of Wisconsin athletes admirably representing our country at the Olympic Games in Vancouver. On behalf of all Wisconsinites, I want to congratulate Alyson on her accomplishments in the 3000-meter and 500-meter short track speed skating events.

The 2010 Winter Olympic Games showed yet again the inspiring skills and talents of Wisconsin natives who participated and medaled in a number of different disciplines. Alyson's exemplary performance in both the individual 500-meter event and 3000-meter relay in Vancouver capped off a tremendous skating season and it is my pleasure to congratulate Alyson, her family, coaches, and teammates on this achievement.

I am proud to recognize Alyson Dudek and all the members of the 2010 United States Olympic Team for their inspiring performance, breaking a record with 37 medals, and for their admirable representation of our country.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, the vote we are having here today is not a vote for PAYGO, or whatever we want to call it. It is a vote to raise the debt ceiling. It is a vote to raise the debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion. The majority might argue this isn't about the debt, but let's not be fooled. This is about a debt ceiling. Treasury has to raise it because we have had this incredible spending spree, and we are on an unsustainable trajectory of more debt.

Now, let's take a look at where we are right now. Right now, the burden of the debt on our economy is 60 percent. That is worse than what is required in Europe, because under this budget that is passing, it goes up to 77 percent of our economy by the end of the President's budget. Now, already, foreigners hold about half of our debt, and China lends us the most. The problem we have, Madam Speaker, is that the Chinese aren't going to keep lending us all their money.

Let me tell you a little bit about what will happen to America. The debt trajectory we are on will weaken America. The debt goes to catastrophic levels in this country which will destroy our economy-- that is a tough word--and for sure give the next generation an inferior standard of living. These are facts. They are not opinions.

Now, one thing that I find interesting about PAYGO is the budget that we are living under right now doubles and triples our debt in 10 years, and it is all PAYGO compliant. The debt skyrockets under the current budget, and it all does so within PAYGO. And if you actually look at the President's budget, it says: with this PAYGO rule, not only will the debt triple in 10 years, but we will have another $473 billion under PAYGO to spend on top of that. That is what PAYGO does, Madam Speaker.

PAYGO has been in place before. We have seen it. It started in 2007 when the Democrats took over Congress. At that time, when PAYGO was put in place, we had a $161 billion deficit. We have a $1.6 trillion deficit now. Forty percent of the entire budget is exempt from PAYGO. It does not do a thing at all to reduce the deficits. In fact, what PAYGO does is it locks in the deficits at its current levels, and it doesn't address the spending crisis.

Not only is spending growing at an unsustainable rate, not only are entitlements growing themselves right into bankruptcy, not only are we looking at bankruptcy of Medicare, Society Security, and Medicaid right around the corner. PAYGO is ripe with loopholes. It exempts 40 percent of spending, as I mentioned. It exempts mandatory spending on appropriation bills. It exempts all spending designed as emergencies, and more than 160 programs are exempt from its enforcement.

The point is this, Madam Speaker: my greatest concern is that if we pass this illusion of fiscal control, that will replace any real fiscal spending control whatsoever. It is good talk. It sounds good. When you look at the details, it accomplishes nothing. And when it is ever applied, it is only to chase higher spending with higher taxes. We should reject this and start over.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming, a distinguished member of the Budget Committee, Mrs. Lummis.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the vice ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, we need to step up to the plate. Look at what is happening with the current government right now. I have three children. They are 5 years old, 6 years old, and our oldest just turned 8. For the last 40 years, the size of our government has been remarkably consistent, about 20 percent of the economy. Meaning we have taken 20 cents out of every dollar made in America to go to the Federal Government. When my three children are my age, the current government we have right now, this is before you would even pass the President's budget, that current government goes to 40 percent of our economy. You will have to take 40 cents out of every dollar made in America just to keep the government we have now in place at that time, doubling the taxes on the next generation.

I asked the Congressional Budget Office what would the income tax rates have to be to support all of this when my kids are my age? The lowest tax bracket, which is now at 10 percent, they said that would have to go to 25 percent. The middle income tax brackets for middle income families go up to 66 percent. Top tax bracket on small businesses, 88 percent.

Madam Speaker, we know we are crashing our economy with this borrow- and-spend mentality. And all of that is PAYGO compliant. This is not budget discipline, it is an illusion. Let's come together and fix this problem.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side?

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The Speaker of the House came and just said something to the effect that this was a proud moment, a happy occasion, a bill she's really excited about. The bill we're about to vote on, Madam Speaker, raises the national debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion. Even if I were a supporter of this bill, I wouldn't be proud of it.

I'm taking a look at the President's budget. On page 172, table S-9, the President's PAYGO proposal says that at the end of the budget window we can spend another $473 billion. So we're saying all the debt that's going up, the tripling of the national debt that we're giving to our kids and grandkids, not only does that comply with PAYGO, we can go ahead and spend another $473 billion on top of it.

This, Madam Speaker, is a fiscal charade. Real people from both parties need to step up and solve this problem. I have thrown out a few ideas of my own. I hope other Republicans and Democrats do the same. Because, Madam Speaker, if we don't tackle this problem, it's going to tackle us.

Our constituents sent us here to be a part of a solution and not a part of the problem. We know irrefutably we're going to bequeath this mountain of deficit and debt onto the next generation. Both of our parties share the blame. No one party corners the virtue on fiscal responsibility. But we're going to, together, have to come down here and fix this problem once and for all. And doing this doesn't do it. Doing this is a cop-out. Doing this raises the debt limit $1.9 trillion and gives us a fiscal cop-out so we can go talk tough in the election about how we did this and that while we bequeath the next generation an inferior standard of living.

I didn't come here to make sure that my three kids are going to have a life that's worse off than ours. Nobody here wants that. So let's get this fixed, defeat this bill, come together, and do real fiscal discipline. The American people are under attack. We overspend.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and congratulate Ms. Karen Nesbit of Franklin, Wisconsin. Ms. Nesbit was recently awarded the 2008 Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. The Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching Program recognizes outstanding teachers across the country for their contributions to the academic and personal development of students in science and mathematics.

Ms. Nesbit has been an educator for 23 years. She has taught in the Franklin Public School District since 1990, and currently teaches first grade at Pleasant View Elementary School. The education of our youth is very important to the continued success of our communities and our country. It is through the dedication of teachers such as Ms. Nesbit that students and are well-equipped with the knowledge and skills they need for their future.

On behalf of those I represent in the 1st District of Wisconsin, I extend my gratitude and congratulations to Ms. Karen Nesbit.

Madam Chair, H.R. 4173, The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, presents a host of new financial rules and regulations and even establishes a new Federal agency, with an advertised goal of minimizing the risk of a future economic crisis like the one we've seen over the past 2 years. But Congress could go a long way toward preventing such damaging boom and bust cycles by changing its existing mandate for one of the most important stewards of our economy: the Federal Reserve. The Humphrey Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978 directed the Fed to focus on two goals that are often at odds: maximizing employment over the short-run while guaranteeing price stability over the long-term. This dual mandate has put the Fed in an impossible situation with regard to managing the economy. Multiple goals that may sometimes be in conflict can increase the chance of an important miscalculation. Monetary policy, in fact, played a key role in this latest economic crisis. The Federal Reserve held interest rates too low for too long earlier this decade, sparking an expansion of credit that fueled a housing bubble that eventually burst and caused an all-out crisis. As we emerge from this recession, I fear that we may be on the cusp of yet another damaging cycle. If the Fed is too slow to act in withdrawing its substantial stimulus as the economy recovers, we will end up with a nasty bout of inflation in the coming years. And the Fed would then have to slam on the brakes and hike interest rates to wring inflation out of the system, costing growth and jobs in the process.

We need to stop this roller coaster ride. That is why I offered an amendment to this bill that would repeal the Humphrey Hawkins Act and make price stability the Fed's sole mandate. This change is meant to re-focus the Fed on its core mission and make sure that we get one of the key fundamentals of the economy right. Price stability, after all, is a necessary precondition for economic growth, job creation and sound money. A focused and clear mandate from Congress would also increase the Fed's transparency and accountability at a time when many are seeking more information about the actions of our central bank. Unfortunately, my amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee.

In response to the recent crisis, the Fed has had to take a variety of unorthodox measures to stabilize our credit markets and resuscitate the economy. Many in Congress have felt unease as the Fed has taken emergency actions to rescue individual companies and launch a variety of new credit facilities for an increasing number of banks, financial institutions and even investors. I share this unease and I believe that Congress should have the ability to gather information about these actions and new facilities, with appropriate safeguards and time lags. But I also believe that we must preserve the existing restrictions on opening up monetary policy deliberations and actions to a government audit. Even the appearance of politicians gaining some measure of influence over monetary policy decisions could have disastrous consequences. Political independence is not simply a luxury for our central bank. It is a core principle of good economic policy that yields real benefits for the American people. A number of empirical studies have shown that countries with independent central banks tend to have steadier economic growth and low and stable rates of inflation. This is not surprising. Just as politicians involved in fiscal policy have a bias toward greater spending, monetary policy influenced by politics would have a bias toward looser credit over the short term and therefore higher rates of inflation over the longer term. Financial markets would immediately recognize this and push up our borrowing rates and further weaken our currency.

As we move forward in this process of financial regulatory reform, Congress should strive for robust oversight of the Fed, but it must guard against political interference. In the end, an independent Federal Reserve with a clear and focused single mandate is the best way to achieve the desirable ends of sustainable economic growth, job creation, and low inflation.

Madam Speaker, in September of 2008, credit markets seized up. Many did not understand the full ramifications of the financial crisis at the time that has since resulted in a deep recession with high unemployment. To respond to that crisis, Congress came together on a bipartisan basis and enacted the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, EESA, that included the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP.

During the debate on that bill, there was tremendous controversy over the $700 billion in authority the administration was seeking to help stabilize financial markets and to avoid a much more severe economic crisis. Treasury was ultimately granted this extraordinary authority, but Congress included many key taxpayer protections. Among those protections, we wanted to make sure that TARP did not become a piggy bank for Congress to use to fund other programs.

The Senate has a budget procedure that is designed to keep funding designated as an emergency from being used as an offset in the future for budget enforcement purposes. The House does not have this procedure for mandatory spending bills, such as the TARP, or tax legislation. It was agreed to at that time that TARP funds could not be used as an offset for new programs or tax reductions for the purposes of budget enforcement. The EESA designated TARP as an emergency for the purposes of Senate enforcement. In the House, the budget is enforced through clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the pay-as-you-go rule, and the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

In order to assure this, Section 204 of the TARP law includes the following language: ``rescissions of any amounts provided in this Act shall not be counted for purposes of budget enforcement.''

This language can only mean one of two things: (1) It means legislation considered by the House of Representatives must find other offsets for new spending or tax reductions and may not use unexpended TARP resources to comply with budget-related points of order; or (2) It means nothing.

The budget and the treatment of TARP and emergencies is a technical matter and it posed a challenge to draft this language under the extraordinary circumstances and pressures involved in the drafting of the EESA. However, the clear intent of the counsels involved in the drafting of the specific legislative language was that TARP should not be used to fund new programs, the expansion of existing programs, or for tax reductions.

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, H.R. 4173, includes language effectively cancelling $10.2 billion in TARP funds in order to offset the effects of increased spending, and only by virtue of the TARP funds, is considered to abide by the pay-as-you-go point of order.

Using TARP to offset new programs is clearly inconsistent with the agreement on the TARP and the EESA when it was enacted on a bipartisan basis in 2008 and I believe it is inconsistent with a plain reading of the law.

This was an instance when we were working together and it is unfortunate that the law and the rules are now being interpreted to allow the TARP to become a piggy bank to increase spending, deficits, and debt.

Mr. Speaker, there is so much irony surrounding this bill here.

First of all, everybody knows this bill is not going anywhere because the Senate already defeated a cheaper version because it created a huge deficit.

I have a score from the Congressional Budget Office which I will insert into the Record that says this thing raises the deficit by $210 billion. What's more ironic is that the majority, which put in this huge PAYGO system, has just swept it aside and decided to say, No, the CBO is wrong, this doesn't increase the deficit. It costs nothing.

Why did they do that? They did that because they're trying to pass this health care bill and suggest that it doesn't cost anything.

I have a letter from the CBO today that simply says when you merge these bills together--because they are together; in fact, this doc fix bill was in the original bill in the first place--that it raises the deficit, now and into the future. It adds more than many dimes to the deficit now and into the future. It breaks the President's pledge and promise on how health care reform will be conducted.

What is even more ironic are the doctors who are telling us to fix this--and we all want to fix this--is that we can't even bring a bill to the floor to fix it without raising the deficit. That's irony.

What I also find especially ironic are that some physicians say fix this but then create this new system, which is basically to have Medicare for everybody else. So if they think the SGR is a problem now, just wait until you see this system writ large throughout all of American health care. That is a mistake.

We should do this in a bipartisan way, fix it without cranking a huge hole in the deficit, and if the majority would have allowed us to bring a bill to do that, we could have done just that. It's cynical. We know this bill is not going anywhere. So let's get back to work and fix this problem without cranking up a huge hole in the deficit.

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield?

If you recall during the debate, at the time we said we should be paying for this and let's come together to find a solution to fix this without raising the deficit. This was inside of your health care bill to begin with. So it's difficult to say that these two things aren't connected.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, clause 10 of rule XXI, what is known as the pay-as-you-go or PAYGO rule, provides a point of order against direct spending or revenue legislation that would increase the deficit, and the bill before us today increases the deficit by $209.6 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office. While there is no authority to reduce the estimated cost of legislation in the rules adopted by the House at the beginning of the 111th Congress, am I correct that the House has effectively modified the application of this rule on two separate occasions with respect to its application to Medicare legislation?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

The first modification was made by the conference report on the FY 2010 budget

resolution adopted on April 29, 2009. Am I correct that the budget resolution provided authority to reduce CBO's deficit estimate of this legislation by up to $38 billion?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

My understanding is that on July 22, in passage of that PAYGO bill, that the budget resolution was modified to allow the CBO estimate of the cost of the legislation to go up to $284 billion which could not be counted. Am I correct that even though the Congressional Budget Office says that this bill raises the deficit by $209.6 billion, the rule in place right now gives the chairman of the Budget Committee the ability to simply say that this costs nothing, that the score is zero.

Am I correct in saying that?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in the Record a statement commending the people at CBO for their long hours and hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that this is probably the most consequential vote each of us will take in our service here, whether you've been here for 40 years or for 1 year.

When you expose this bill's budget gimmicks, does it increase the debt and deficit? Yes. Will it take coverage away from seniors, raise premiums for families, and decrease health care innovation? Yes. Will it raise taxes on small businesses and workers and cost us nearly 5.5 million jobs when our unemployment rate is 10.2 percent? Yes. Does this bill mean the government will take over running our health care system? Yes.

But what is worse is this bill replaces the American idea with a European-style social welfare state. This bill, more than any other decision we are going to make in this body, will do more to put millions of Americans as dependents of a state rather than being dependent upon themselves.

This is not about health care policy. If it were, we could pass a bipartisan bill to fix what's broken in health care without breaking what's working in health care. This is about ideology.

My friends, the choice is not whether you're going to stick with your party leaders. The choice here is what side of history do you want to be on? Will you be on the side of history where you stick with the people and the principles that built this exceptional Nation? That is the choice we are going to make with this bill, and I encourage you to think it through.

It is unusual for the House to be in session working on a Saturday. That has not been the case for the Congressional Budget Office's staff that has been working on health care legislation. For the past several months, CBO has worked non-stop to analyze health care legislation. This legislation is enormously complex and far-reaching and CBO is doing their best to fulfill their mission to provide objective non- partisan analysis to the Congress. That analysis is critically important to us and I want to acknowledge the hard work of Director Doug Elmendorf and the following CBO staff in that endeavor:

Alexandra Minicozzi, Allison Percy, Andrea Noda, Anna Cook,

April Grady, Athiphat Muthitacharoen, Ben Page, Bruce

Vavrichek, Assistant Director for Health and Human Resources.

Carla Tighe Murray, Chapin White, Christi Hawley Anthony,

Colin Baker, Daniel Kao, David Auerbach, David Austin, David

Weiner, Doug Elmendorf, Director.

Elizabeth Bass, Ellen Werble, Heidi Golding, Holly Harvey,

Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis, Jamease

Kowalczyk, James Baumgardner, Deputy Assistant Director for

Health, Janet Holtzblatt, Jean Hearne.

Jodi Capps, Joyce Manchester, Unit Chief, Long Term

Modeling Group, Julia Christensen, Julie Lee, Julie Somers,

Julie Topoleski, Kate Massey, Unit Chief, Low-Income Health

Programs and Prescription Drugs Cost Estimates.

Keisuke Nakagawa, Kirstin Nelson, Kurt Seibert, Lara

Robillard, Leo Lex, Unit Chief, State and Local Government

Cost Estimates, Lisa Ramirez-Branum, Lori Housman, Lyle

Nelson, Matt Schmit, Matthew Goldberg, Assistant Director for

National Security.

Mike Carpenter, Mindy Cohen, Noah Meyerson, Noelia

Duchovny, Patrick Bernhardt, Paul Burnham, Paul Jacobs, Pete

Fontaine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

Phil Ellis, Unit Chief, Health Policy Analysis, Rebecca

Yip, Robert Stewart, Sarah Jennings, Sean Dunbar, Sheila

Campbell, Stephanie Cameron, Stuart Hagen, Sunita D'Monte,

Susan Labovich, Tom Bradley, Unit Chief, Health Systems and

Medicare Cost Estimates.

Mr. Speaker, this is perhaps the worst bill I have seen come to the floor in my 11 years of serving in Congress, and what would make this bill worse is if we break with the long-standing law of preventing abortions from being funded with taxpayer dollars.

For those of us who support the protection of and the sanctity of life, the only vote, the right vote, the vote to keep a clean conscience is a ``yes'' vote for the Stupak amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Wisconsinites might want to know that just recently our Blue Cross Blue Shield program announced that people in their twenties under this health care bill will see a 199 percent increase in their health insurance premiums. People in their forties will see a 122 percent increase in their health insurance premiums. People in their fifties will see a dramatic double-digit increase in their health insurance premiums.

Mr. Speaker, 214,000 Wisconsinites might want to know that their Medicare Advantage plan that they enjoy will be either dramatically more expensive or will go away completely. The American taxpayer might want to know that government estimators are telling us that this bill will cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion in a new health care entitlement, which will surely add more deficit and debt to future generations.

The shame of all of this, Mr. Speaker, is that we could fix what is broken in health care without breaking what is working in health care. Republicans have offered 40 different pieces of legislation in an attempt to get bipartisan compromise, to make sure that the uninsured get insured, that people with preexisting conditions get health care, and we do this without breaking the bank, without raising taxes and without creating new debt and deficit and entitlements.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Mrs. Susan Ann (Liston) Skerbish, Wisconsin's First Congressional District Constituent Services Representative.

I have been fortunate to work with staff whose attitude and outlook are positive. But Susie's sweet nature stands out. She joined my office fresh out of college as an idealistic young woman dedicated to the cause of freedom and the desire to help make our society a better place. Susie's winsome smile has always brought sunshine to our office, uplifting morale on the busiest and most difficult days.

By now she has assisted hundreds of religious and nonprofit organizations to secure the grants to help fulfill their social mission, as well as local governments to receive the share of federal resources to which they are entitled. Her contribution to the well- being of Wisconsinites has been tremendous.

In the time since she came to my office, Susie became a loving wife and has recently become a new mom. With her sweet nature and great attitude, all of us in the First District offices feel like part of her family.

I am pleased to recognize Susie's 10 years of service to Wisconsinites in the First District.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Miss Teresa Mora. Teresa is the Field Representative in my district office and has worked with me for more than ten years.

Teresa's personal experience is an embodiment of the American Dream. She was born in Mexico to a loving and close family. They recognized the opportunities for prosperity and freedom which the United States held out to them, and made the difficult decision to come to this country in pursuit of a better life for themselves and their children.

Teresa is conscientious and loyal. Her unique experience has given her a great love for her adopted country combined with passion to help others of Hispanic background who make up a considerable part of Wisconsin's First Congressional District.

Teresa's sincerity and heart of gold help her to win the confidence of immigrants who need assistance in working with the federal government. With bilingual skills, she works comfortably within the immigrant community to build trust and candor to help solve documentation and other government-related problems.

In her role as a representative working in a conservative Republican Congressional office, Teresa has at times encountered hostility based on misunderstanding. Teresa is never partisan, but her positive experience as an American citizen empowers her with a sincere message of hope and success in this country that never fails to open minds and hearts.

I am proud to acknowledge the excellent service and positive efforts Teresa Mora has made over ten years to make life better for the families of Wisconsin's First Congressional District.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Chad Allen Herbert, who is the Constituent Services Representative for military issues in my district office.

Chad is the ``big brother'' of our district office staff. He joined my staff ten years ago as an Army reservist with special concern for the problems and challenges of military personnel and their families. Many of these problems involve the byzantine structure of bureaucracies at the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. Chad made it his business to learn and understand how to navigate the maze of these military agencies. As a result, he has done more over the years to help men and women of the First Congressional District who serve in the armed services than anyone I know of.

Among the most sobering duties of my office is speaking words of comfort to families who have just lost a loved one in military service. Chad has often followed up my initial conversations or substituted for me during the worst moments in the lives of military families. His poise, tact, and professionalism have never failed to be appreciated as he has honored the fallen and their families. Indeed Chad has a passion for making sure our veterans are honored for their extraordinary service to our country. He takes special pride in getting our vets the recognition they deserve, for example, by helping World War Two and Vietnam veterans acquire the medals they were awarded but never received.

Chad was a recent college grad when he began in my office ten years ago, and has since married and is raising a fine family. I am privileged to recognize his ten years of service in my office to the military families of Wisconsin's First District.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Miss Danyell Tremmel, our District Director, for more than 10 years of work in the First Congressional District of Wisconsin office serving my constituents.

Danyell has actually been working for the people of the District even longer than I have. When Mark Neumann represented the District in the House of Representatives, she was his only caseworker. Thus she was already a seasoned ``veteran'' when she agreed to continue on my own staff as I succeeded Congressman Neumann in 1999. Since then she has become something of a ``big sister'' to newer staff

Anyone who has shared the day to day experience of casework in a Congressional office knows the strains and frustrations, in addressing legitimately upset constituents on the one hand and the bureaucratic slip-ups that have adversely impacted their lives on the other. Over the years, Danyell learned how to negotiate her way through the red tape to resolve these issues. She is very intelligent and patient. Her serenity under stress is invaluable and has inspired her coworkers.

Danyell directs my district office operations whenever the Chief of Staff is unavailable, and will be doing so for an extended time while he serves his country on military duty in Iraq.

Danyell has kept her enthusiasm, high standards, and work ethic as she has worked with me for the people of the First District. I am pleased to recognize her for more than 10 years of selfless dedication.