Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today with the honor of recognizing Dick Bozzone, a veteran of the United States Air Force and former commander of the American Legion Cpl. Jedh C. Baker Memorial Post 153. Dick has been recognized for his service to his country and community by being named the Grand Marshal of the Tri-Boro Memorial Day Parade in Montvale, Park Ridge, and Woodcliff Lake, NJ. During my time representing these boroughs, I have had the opportunity to get to know Dick, and consider him well-deserving of this accolade.

Since retiring from the Air Force, Dick has remained an active supporter of our nation's servicemen and servicewomen. In addition to his years as the American Legion Post Commander, Dick also served as the President of the Chorwon Chapter of the Korean War Veterans Association. This past year, Dick and his fellow Legionnaires erected a monument memorializing those who lost their lives in the Fort Hood Massacre. Dick has proven to be an effective advocate for veterans and active-duty members of the military, and has also educated the public on proper respect for the U.S. Flag. Dick has been active in his community, our state, and our nation. He has run for office on the local and federal level, and has served in various leadership posts in the local Republican Party. He was also appointed as a Commissioner of the USS NJ Battleship Museum under two governors.

This is not the first time Dick has been recognized for his exemplary citizenship. In addition to his awards for serving honorably in the Air Force, he has been grand marshal of several other parades and is one of the few honorary members of the Pearl Harbor Survivors' Club of NJ. Last year, Park Ridge Mayor Donald Ruschman recognized Dick's years of public service alongside other civic, educational, and religious leaders from the borough. I join Mayor Ruschman, the boroughs of Montvale, Park Ridge, and Woodcliff Lake, and countless others in thanking Dick Bozzone for his ongoing service to this country and commend him for leading an exemplary public life. Dick is a man our sons and daughters can look up to, and an individual our community can depend on. Our brave servicemen and women are the embodiment of the American ideals, and it is an honor to represent such individuals as Dick Bozzone in Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise now to commemorate a significant event: the 43rd anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, which is being celebrated today. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 271, which recognizes this important day.

Jerusalem is one of the most historic cities in the world; it has been destroyed, besieged, attacked, captured, and recaptured multiple times. Yet in 1948, for the first time, the city was divided into two parts. For the following 19 years, access to holy sites was denied by Jordan. Even worse, synagogues were destroyed and ancient tombstones desecrated. Residents of Jerusalem could not even see the Western Wall, let alone pray there.

At last, in 1967, Jerusalem was reunited during the Six Day War. In celebration, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan gave this oft-repeated statement:

``This morning, the Israel Defense Forces . . . have united Jerusalem, the divided capital of Israel. We have returned to the holiest of our holy places, never to part from it again. To our Arab neighbors we extend, also at this hour--and with added emphasis at this hour--our hand in peace. And to our Christian and Muslim fellow citizens, we solemnly promise full religious freedom and rights. We did not come to Jerusalem for the sake of other peoples' holy places, and not to interfere with the adherents of other faiths, but in order to safeguard its entirety, and to live there together with others, in unity.''

Truly, today is not cause for celebration by Jews only. Christians and Muslims also consider Jerusalem a holy city. Furthermore, visitors of many other faiths travel to the Old City to pray or simply appreciate the historic sites, which are not only accessible today, but also properly maintained.

Sadly, some people still do not consider Jerusalem to be Israel's capital. And despite the passage of the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, we have not yet moved the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It is preposterous that Israel, our democratic friend and strategic ally, is the only country in which the U.S. embassy is not located in the functioning capital. I strongly encourage President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to begin the process of relocating the U.S. Embassy in Israel.

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, recently stated: ``The connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel cannot be denied. The connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem cannot be denied . . . Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital.''

In closing, I want to reflect on the name, ``Jerusalem.'' It is my understanding that the name of this city is built from a Hebrew root word meaning ``completeness'' or ``wholeness.'' How appropriate that for the past 43 years Jerusalem has been able to live up to its name. As Psalm 122:3 states: ``Jerusalem is built as a city that is united together.''

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, last year The Washington Post ran a story entitled ``Energy Costs Generating Light Bulb Solutions.'' And the story talked about how energy efficiency programs that are being employed by local governments and local utilities are working here in D.C. And many of the programs, actually, when you looked into the article, sound a lot like the program that we are creating here today on the Federal level.

For example, according to the article, in Maryland power companies at a local level began offering all customers energy home audits for free if they simply installed power-saving, energy-efficient light bulbs in the house. Later in that article, one of the persons who had taken advantage of the program, D.C. resident Elizabeth Fox, said this: She was thrilled to take advantage of this local program, an existing city program, to get a lengthy, free audit of a 100-year-old drafty house that she lived in in the northwest. She said, ``We got a written report we kept referring back to while we were renovating the third floor of the house.'' She added with that with the new insulation, a super- efficient washer, dryer, hot-water heater, and air conditioner, still her heating bills in the house stayed around $500. So she said, ``I can't say we've stopped the leaky air.'' As a matter of fact, with the third floor now in use for the first time ever because of all these efficiencies, she said, ``Our energy bills actually stayed exactly the same.''

So the article raises two important questions today for us here: the first question is if the State and local governments and local power companies have already taken the initiative to create these programs on a local level on their own, why are we creating a redundant program here on the Federal

level to do the same thing? Think about it. No doubt, local companies and governments know to a much greater extent than we in Congress whether creating these incentives for energy efficiencies really work from a financial point of view.

But the article also makes a broader point, and this is it: when we improve energy efficiency, we lower the cost of using energy, and, unsurprisingly, this also increases the demand for the energy. This has been documented way back since 1865, and no one has ever refuted it. And as pointed out in this Washington Post article, when she put in all these energy-efficient appliances and what have you, her energy use still stayed the same.

Here is a chart over here which sort of points this out. From 1991 to 2005, energy consumption of major appliances, how much that each use, actually has been going down, down, down for air conditioners, refrigerators, clothes washers, and the like. But look at what U.S. per capita electricity consumption has been. It has basically been going up. And why is that? That's because when you get these appliances that are more efficient, you end up using more of them and for longer periods of time. So U.S. per capita energy consumption increases even though we get even more energy-efficient appliances.

If you try to achieve energy efficiency on the demand side of the equation, as this legislation would do, we also have to be successful at addressing the supply side. And that's why I approach this issue of ``all of the above'' when it comes to energy policy.

The Democrat majority may continue to rewrite the laws in this country, but one thing they haven't been able to figure out how to do is rewrite the laws of economics.

So needless to say, I remain skeptical about the benefits of this bill, and that's why I am proposing an addition to this bill, basically a little study by the GAO to conduct an audit of the program to find out one way or the other if the programs created by this bill really work. My amendment would direct the GAO to do a couple of things, do a study over the next 2 years to find out the following: How much money really have we saved after we have spent all this money for efficiency? How much energy was really saved by all this? And finally, putting those together, whether the savings exceeded the cost of implementing this program.

When you consider the claims by the proponents of this legislation that this bill will save money, will save energy, and create thousands of jobs, I hope they won't object to this additional study here. But at a time when we have a trillion dollars in deficits in this country as far as the eye can see, at the very least the American taxpayer should know if his or her dollars are being spent efficiently.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman's acceptance of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the Chair, and I thank the gentleman from California who was previously speaking for his insightful analysis of where the country currently finds itself with regard to this macro issue of Wall Street reform and banking reform in this country, something which Members on both sides of the aisle agree wholeheartedly is necessary and needed to be done. We just need to make sure that we do so in a thoughtful manner so we don't do more harm than good.

When President Obama and Democrats claim Republicans are doing the bidding of big Wall Street banks and oppose all financial service reg reform, you know, you hear that over and over again by some of the commentators on TV, I have to say, you find it laughable on a number of different levels.

First of all, think about this, it is the Democrat bills that have institutionalized permanent bailouts and too big to fail. It is no wonder then that Democrats have received such strong fund raising support from the titans of Wall Street.

As I stand here, I'm not sure I have all of those numbers before me. Later on I may. Off the top of my head, those numbers stand out as something to the tune of something like around $15 million from the various titans of Wall Street, as they put it, to the President's campaign in the last cycle. I think the number I saw just the other day, and the most recent numbers out for the 2008 cycle of Congress, something like $2.9 million from these various Wall Street firms and banks going to the majority party, the Democrat Party, in the last election; twice as much as what is going to Republicans.

Maybe it is no wonder that they have received such strong support from Wall Street that they would then put in a bill that would see to it that Wall Street is taken care of in the sense of the perpetuation of bailouts at the taxpayers' expense.

Not only do Republicans support real financial service reform, the House Republicans were the first ones to come forward with a comprehensive reform plan that actually ends too big to fail. It ends bailouts, and we also don't succumb to the Democrats' urge to take yet another vast portion of our economy with government overreach and intrusion and bullying of private businesses. Think about that.

The reason I point out that Republicans came out with a proposal earlier than the majority party, earlier than the White House, earlier than the Treasury. I remember being in this Chamber talking on this floor early last year in 2009, in January and February and March saying we need to attack this problem on Wall Street, we need to attack the morass that we are finding our country in economically. We needed to get reform done. All of the while Treasury was telling us we will have something next week, we will have something next week.

Week after week passed, and we finally ended our waiting for them and we put our minds together. We listened to the American public and we listened to the experts. We listened to the people who were involved with this and the people who also would be hurt by wrong actions being taken. We took all of that advice and we came up with a Republican solution to this proposal, and actually had it done before the White House ever even came up with their white paper that they presented at the White House.

I remember going to that presentation where the President came out and said here is my solution, here is the problem, just laid it out and left the stage. Didn't take a single question from the audience. That is how it has been ever since, left the stage and has not listened to what the American public and those involved have to say about their plan.

Before I go to our Republican plan, I would like to remind our colleagues over in the Senate on the other side, who likely will be asked to vote on the Obama-Dodd-Frank plan, and they will be likely to vote on it again soon. They voted on it earlier, and I guess they will be doing it again today, if they haven't done so already. And the way it is coming down in the press reports is that Harry Reid sees it as a win/win for them to just continue to put vote after vote after vote. The last vote Republicans stood together saying they would vote ``no'' on any bill that would perpetuate bailouts to taxpayers for these financial institutions. That is a good thing. We hope they stand firm on that.

There is a whole host of reasons, in addition to that, why both Democrats and Republicans should vote against that 1,300-page permanent bailout bill.

Let me digress for a moment on that issue. We are just now learning of the ramifications, unintended and otherwise, from the health care bill; you know, that 2,000-page bill that we know no one read on this floor and understood all of the ancillary portions of it, and yet it passed in the House, passed in the Senate, and came back to the House again and passed overwhelmingly after a lot of arm twisting by the White House and others to get all of the votes they needed to get it done.

But you could see during the debate in the health care bill, when poignant questions and particular questions were raised on particular portions of the bill, there was no one on the other side of the aisle who could honestly say I have read through the bill, all of the several thousand pages, and all of the ancillary references to it and had a complete understanding of it. Yet that bill passed, and now we are seeing the ramifications from that.

A study came out this past week from this administration saying the actual cost of health care, remember President Obama said he was going to actually lower it, would go up by a percentage or so over a 10-year period of time. Remember the President also promised no one would lose their health care plan, they didn't read the bill. Because they didn't read the bill, they find out now in another study that about half of those senior citizens on the Advantage program of Medicare will be losing their plans. That is the ramifications when you try to rush something through without reading it and understanding it.

Now back to the point, here we have over in the Senate, we have a 1,300-page plus bill that didn't go through the committee process and didn't have an opportunity for vetting and hearing from the various witnesses and experts, that, too, Senator Reid is trying to push through this week against all odds and truly understanding what they are doing over there.

The bill they are attempting to work on and move quickly without that understanding codifies the government policies invoked to bail out AIG, Bear Stearns, and others, and it does so, in large part, by creating a permanent $50 billion bailout fund which, I should add, can be endlessly reloaded. Let me make a point on that.

They say we are going to set up this $50 billion fund to bail out the future bank losses and what have you. Well, if the next day they need that $50 billion and it goes down, the next day after that they can go right back to the pot of money and try to raise it back up again, and go to another $50 billion. So $50 billion is really a placeholder for 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, on and on and on it could go, bailing out failing institutions, so-called too-big-to-fail institutions, and potentially also indirectly put the American taxpayer on the hook.

I should probably explain just one example of that. Look at AIG. What was the number we saw on AIG. I think it was around $80 billion needed to bail it out. Here is the seminal question which I think we put to Secretary Geithner. I don't know if we ever got a satisfactory answer from him or anyone else who proposed the legislation in the Senate. The questions was: Had you had this bill, the Dodd bill, in place prior to AIG, would the outcome have been any different?

Well, there you needed about $80 billion, all from the American taxpayers. Here they say we will have $50 billion. Obviously $50 billion is not enough; so in the short term, where will you get that money. The bill, the Senate Democrat Obama-Dodd-Frank bill basically says you can go to the Federal Government, the Federal Reserve, they can basically front end load that money to the facility so they can loan it out to whether it is AIG next time or another Lehman in the future, or what have you. The American taxpayer at that point in time is now on the hook for however much money they want to lend out without basically any limit.

Other portions of the bill that are problematic besides creating a permanent $50 billion bailout fund, which, as I said, would be endlessly reloaded, paid for by taxing financial firms to pay for other larger firms' failure. I think that is an important point. If you have a local community bank in your community, you have to ask them, What do you think about the fact that potentially, depending upon your size, you could be held liable for the egregious mistakes and failures of these huge titans of Wall Street who make absurd investment decisions. I think most of your local community banks that potentially could be on the hook would say, it is nothing good for us, it is nothing good for our local community because any time you put a tax on something, one bank or another, it hurts the businesses in that community.

Another major point that is problematic with the bill, it expands the implied government guarantee in the financial marketplace for the largest firms. Sort of along the point I was just making here, it is the biggest firms in Wall Street that are going to be able to say, Thank goodness, thank goodness we made all of these contributions to those people in Washington who are now supporting this legislation of the Dodd-Frank-Obama bill because now we know who our friends are, and of course, it is on the other side of the aisle, who are supporting this legislation that will allow for their perpetual bailout.

Another problem with the bill is it continues to place taxpayers on the hook for billions, if not trillions of dollars for bailed out failed nonbanks. I say trillions of dollars because there is nothing in that 1,300 pages of legislation that is sitting in the other House, in the Senate right now that Senator Reid wants them to push right through, vote on without having full understanding of it. There is nothing in that bill that would say, American taxpayer, your liability to the big banks in New York and around the country is going to be limited at this much or this much. There is no limit. It can just go up to billions of dollars, tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars, or trillions and trillions of dollars potentially.

And if you think trillions are out of sight as far as the potential, all we have to look at is the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and where is the limit on the potential loss to the American taxpayer there. I think it is around $389 billion that they have scored that it will cost taxpayers over the next 10 years coming out of our Treasury, which means out of our pockets. But there is a potential there with several trillions of dollars of potential losses on their books that we can all Americans be eventually liable for. So trillions are not out of the question when you are talking about such mammoth institutions and trading as we have seen here.

To continue, with the problems of the Senate financial services so- called reform bill that Senator Reid is trying to push through the Senate as we speak without anyone really understanding or reading it, the bill continues the pattern of government overreach that we have seen throughout the Obama administration and with the Democrats controlling here in the House.

It also continues the pattern of government picking winners and losers and political bullying and deciding just who it is will succeed in this country and who it is that is going to fail rather than through the private market and rather than through the rule of law and the rule of the bankruptcy code.

Did we ever think that we would come to the day when it would be the politicians who would decide: I think that business over there should do well and thrive and succeed, as opposed to this business over here. I don't have much favor for them for one reason or another, maybe they are not a friend of mine politically or otherwise, and the politicians says, That business can go into the dust and not succeed.

Did we ever think we would get to the day when it would be Washington and Washington politicians and bureaucrats who would say, I am going to pick that one as a winner, and that one over there is a loser.

That, in essence, is basically what we find in the 1,300-page bill that Senator Reid would like to see passed without any real debate or discussion or amendments or improvements upon because it allows the bureaucrats of various Federal agencies, these appointed and unelected individuals, to make those basically life-and-death decisions for industry and life-and-death decisions for businesses as well.

Did we ever think we would get to the point where those decisions are not made by the markets because this business actually did do a better job in deciding how it would grow, how it would invest, what sort of services it would provide? That's how the free market has always thought that businesses should thrive. And if this business over here decides that they make poor investment decisions, poor customer service, poor decisions, generally, on how it's running, then the market should say that is the business that will fail.

Well, we're going to throw that all aside now with this piece of legislation and say the market forces are not going to be it. What people decide on situations of who should win and who should lose are not going to be the preeminent decision basis anymore. Instead it's going to be politicians and bureaucrats, a sad day that most Founding Fathers would never have thought we would get to.

Another problem with the Senate bill, the Frank-Dodd bill that Harry Reid is trying to push through the Senate right now without a debate and without a full discussion and disclosure of an understanding of the entire bill, is that the bill will restrict access to credit for families and small businesses and ultimately make credit more expensive and less available.

A recent study points out that the portion of the bill, the CFPA, Consumer Financial Protection Agency, something that they want to create as a brand new agency here in Washington, as if we don't have enough agencies already in Washington, a recent study points out that the CFPA will increase the cost of interest rates that consumers pay by at least 160 basis points. What does that mean? That means if you have a 6 percent loan that you could have gotten today, well, once this bill passes, then it will increase by 160 basis points. That means your 6 percent loan will now be 7.6 percent.

Also, the study shows it will reduce consumer borrowing by at least 2.1 percent. Well, that makes sense. Right now most people, when they're out looking for a car loan or they're looking for a mortgage for the house or a home equity loan to try to make some improvements, one of the first things they do when they sit down with their banker or when they open up the paper to see what the availability of interest rates is, they look to see how much are those interest rates. And you want to get the very best interest rates you can get because every percentage point higher means less money in your pocket at the end of the day and more money in the banker's pockets.

Well, this bill, outside studies have said that when you now start looking for those car loans, student loans, commercial loans, mortgages for your house or mortgages for commercial property, under this bill, because they're adding these new impediments to the access of credit, you will see your rates of interest go up by 1 point, 1.5 points. That 1.5 points can mean a lot of money, a lot of money out of your pocket and mine every time you take a loan. And think about it, is that something we really want to do during this economic morass, these economic troubles that we find ourselves in right now?

I have so many small businesses that come to me right now, owners of small businesses, some are individuals, that say I just can't get credit as it is. I have a good credit rating, I have a good credit position, I've been paying all my bills on time, but when I go out to try to get a loan, I just can't get it. And as it is, the rates that are out there are not just really where I want to be, but I can maybe afford them if I can get those loans.

Well, here we're going to have the Senate now try to pass a bill--and we already passed a version of it in the House, unfortunately--that will say to an individual who is already struggling to get a loan or struggling to pay his current interest, you know, the next time you get this loan, the rates were

here, now they're going to be 1 point, 1.5 points, even higher; more money out of your pocket each time just because we're creating a new agency in Washington with no other real effect except to make the credit availability less than it is now.

Another huge problem with the bill that's before us in the Senate, that already passed the House and potentially will come back to the House for another vote if it unfortunately gets out of the Senate, is that the bill will also cost jobs; and it will cost the jobs at a time when the singular focus in this Congress should be just the opposite. The one main goal that we should be able to work on across the aisle in this House is how to create more jobs all across this country, all 50 States.

I know the average rate for unemployment in this country is just shy of 10 percent; but, boy, you talk to some folks in different parts of this country and you know that the unemployment rate is a lot higher than that: 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent, 40 percent, 50, 60 percent higher in certain portions of this country than where it is as a national average. You talk to those people where the long-term unemployment rate is around 15, 16, 17 percent and ask them, What's the most important thing that Congress should be doing right now? They will honestly answer you, Get me a job; Help turn the economy around so unemployment rates start going down again and so I can start supporting my family again.

And what are we doing? What I'm doing is trying to create those jobs. But what is Congress doing? What is the Senate doing right now? What is the Democrat majority doing right now? Well, they're trying to pass a bill over in the Senate that will cost the creation of jobs just at a time when we should try making even more.

Remember I mentioned a study earlier saying that if we pass that Senate bill out of the Senate--today, tomorrow, this week, next week--I mentioned before that if we do so, your credit costs will go up. That same study also found the number of jobs will be impacted in this country as well. And here's what they found: the study found that the CFPA, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which is a provision in that bill over in the Senate, will actually reduce net new jobs in the economy by 4.3 percent. Let me repeat that: if the Senate bill were to pass and that new CFPA were to be created, as the President wants it to be created, you would reduce net new jobs in the economy by 4.3 percent. So pass the Senate bill, see the net number of jobs go down by 4.3 percent.

There's another provision in the bill as well, just as an aside-- without getting into the weeds, as they say, portions of the bill--it says the derivative and systemic risk portion of the bill--that's a whole other portion separate from the CFPA, that is a section that tries to regulate and address the issue of derivatives. And Republicans, by the way, as I mentioned in the earlier portion of this hour, did put in language to try to address derivatives and make sure that there is more transparency and accountability there, but the way they're doing it right now over in the Senate, that section will also likely reduce jobs as well, according to outside experts. And why is that?

Well, it's hard to get into without going through a laborious explanation of derivatives and how they all work and what have you; but just understand this, that if you create higher costs for the end users, if you create higher costs, whether it's credits or otherwise, for people who currently use the markets as they are currently configured in an honest, transparent, and open way, if you require certain businesses to say, well, instead of taking this $100,000 that I was going to use to buy some new equipment, a new truck, new manufacturing equipment, or instead of me taking this $1 million I have over here to build a new plant, to hire new employees, to create a new manufacturing base, I'm going to have to use that over here because of all the new rules and regulations that the Senate wants to impose on that business.

I'm going to have to put it over here sort of just sitting in the bank, if you will, as far as capital because of these new derivative requirements. If I can't use it to buy a new truck, if I can't use it to buy new equipment, if I can't use it to build a new building, I basically just have to set it aside as far as margin or capital requirements, what happens to job creation in that business?

If he can't buy the new truck, he's not going to hire a new driver to drive that truck. If he can't use the money to buy a new piece of equipment, he's not going to be able to hire new people in the business to run the equipment. If he can't use the $1 million, or whatever it is, to build a new plant to manufacture something, he's not going to be able to hire new people that are able to run that factory and work in the offices in that factory as well or that business as well because this legislation will basically shift that money, job-creation dollars, from that practical good use for the economy over here to, well, let's say not a job-creating use--another problem of the overall legislation that the Senate is trying to pass as we speak.

So at a time when Americans are pleading with the political leaders to stop government overreach in the economy and in their lives, well, this bill basically, again, doesn't listen to those Americans. The Senate bill basically greatly expands government authority for government bureaucrats to regulate now another huge segment of the economy, including, by the way, non-financial institutions, things like retail stores that offer layaway plans, companies that finance their own sales, and even manufacturers that ensure against their risk.

All these areas had absolutely nothing to do with the economic problems that the country finds itself in today, okay, but all of a sudden, because there is an opportunity out there to grow government, grow government agencies, create new programs at the expense of the taxpayers, as the President's Chief of Staff said--and I paraphrase him--Don't let any good crisis go to waste, we're in a crisis situation, so instead of dealing with the crisis area over here, we're going to start creating all new agencies over here to regulate all different aspects of the economy that were not part of the problem. That's exactly what this legislation that we hear is about to be considered in the Senate, that Senator Reid would like to pass through without the debate, deliberation, and transparency that we would like.

So at a time when Americans are pleading with political leaders to stop the government overreach, this bill greatly expands authority for government bureaucrats, as I say, to regulate huge segments of the economy, including those non-financial institutions, such as the stores and the layaway plans and so on and so forth.

It also allows--and here's a point--it also allows government bureaucrats to take over and actually close a firm. The government, for the first time you're going to be able to say, besides picking winners and losers, as I pointed out before, which is a tremendous overreach of government authority to say for a bureaucrat someplace in Washington or New York or some other place designated by the Washington bureaucrats to say, well, we think that your business should win and your business should lose, besides just picking winners and losers, the Senate bill goes even further than that.

It allows government bureaucrats to take over and close a firm. They can say for whatever reason--hopefully not political, but who knows-- for whatever reason these bureaucrats will say, well, I think that firm over there is one I think the government agency now should take over. Isn't that really too much power in the hands of the government? And doesn't it open up our economy to political bullying rather than the way it should be?

And the way it should be is it should be that a firm's success or ultimate failure should be decided by the free markets, decided by the people of the country whether they think this company is providing the services they like and this company is not providing. That's the way it has been for 200-plus years--or longer than that, actually--in this country, and now we're going to change all that and allow bureaucrats to say, you win, you lose, we're going to take over you, we're going to not take over you; we're going to provide you with a bailout at taxpayers' expense; you're going to have to do it on your own. And you the citizens out there are going to have to all pay the price of this.

Those of you who think you have nothing to do with financial services,

well, you're going to see your interest rates go up. Those of you who are out there who think that this doesn't impact you, well, you may not be able to find a job next year because the net number of new jobs is not going to increase as it would have. It's going to impact upon all of us if we are to pass this failed bill over in the Senate.

Now, several portions of the bill also are handouts to--who do you think? The trial bar. Why is that? Because it will increase lawsuits. It will benefit lawyers, but drive up costs for everybody else. Nothing against lawyers by any means, trial lawyers as well, but do we really need another piece of legislation that will just basically increase the number of lawsuits in this country? Don't we have enough lawsuits already going on? Do we need to set up a structure that fundamentally is done in such a way that most of the experts looking at it are saying, yes, the number of lawsuits is going to increase just because there is so much ambiguity that's out there?

Also, at a time when you're seeing a growing consensus that the Federal Reserve should be less powerful, let's take a look at the Federal Reserve, and isn't there a consensus now. I think we saw bipartisan support that the amount of control and authority and power of the Federal Reserve, I thought there was growing consensus in this country and also in this Congress, in this House, that maybe the Federal Reserve should be reined in a little--or some were saying a whole lot. That's not what is happening over in the Senate.

So at a time when you're seeing a growing consensus that the Federal Reserve should be given less power, not more, the Senate bill greatly expands the Federal regulatory powers. This is done despite the fact the board has a proven track record of failing to identify systemic risks before they actually occur in its overeagerness to pay taxpayers money at risk while conducting fiscal policy without accountability. It has an overeagerness to put taxpayers' money at risk while conducting fiscal policy without any accountability.

And any time we try to get that accountability, I should add just as a side note, what do we get? We get pushback from the Federal Reserve. Pushback, whether it's a Republican idea; pushback, whether it's a Democrat idea to try to put in some additional levels of accountability and transparency. And so despite that, the Senate bill is going to say we're going to give them even more and greater power and control.

Given the extraordinary government interventions into private firms we've already seen with the trampling of the rule of law in order to benefit political favorites in the auto industry, for instance, I'm very uncomfortable with any of these new sweeping powers. The auto industry, I guess, is a clear example of that. It goes back to what I was saying before: Federal Government, bureaucrats saying this company wins, this company loses, and we're going to use the taxpayers' money to prop them up and keep them going.

Let me just go back for one little point I raised before--I didn't want to go into the weeds too much on it--and that was the derivatives portion of the bill. Derivatives, I've heard them described in a number of different ways, insurance policies or such, but without going into the details on how they actually operate, remember this about derivatives, I guess, to take away from my remarks on derivatives: none of the experts that came before the committee--those who use them, those who didn't use them, those who are involved with them, those who are not involved with them, academics and the like--there was no one who said that the problems that we find ourselves in today were because of the structure or the makeup of derivatives themselves. No. I think most of the experts who came to us said it was the fact that you had trading in derivatives without adequate transparency and capital there in certain circumstances, like in the AIG situation.

And then similarly, with the AIG situation you had a situation where the regulators who were charged with knowing what they are doing, having the authority to do so, failed to live up to their obligation to monitor the very entities that they are supposed to be giving oversight to. Isn't it a little bit ironic that we see now in the Senate that those very same failed regulators are going to get even bigger and broader powers.

In any event, on the derivative portion of the bill, what does the Senate bill do? Well, it sets up a really, I don't know what is a good word for it--I guess a technical word would be clumsy--it sets up a clumsy new two-tiered SEC-CFTC regulatory regime over all derivative users. And that is really a huge portion of the economy.

You know, the average person says, ``I don't use derivatives.'' And the average small business might say, ``I don't use derivatives.'' But that small business begins to look one step behind its daily activities, it may find that the source of its credit does in fact use derivatives. That industry that has a particular product that they manufacture, what have you, maybe people in the company that work there don't recognize it, but you talk to the CFO, chief financial officer or otherwise, you will find out that they actually do use derivatives to protect themselves, just like other companies use risk management as mechanisms to protect other portions of their business. So they are used. They are a huge portion of the economy.

And here we have a Senate bill now saying we are going to fool around with this and set up this new two-tiered SEC and CFTC regulatory regime over all the derivative users. And in a way it goes back to my earlier point that it will probably be ripe for litigation and also confusion to say the least.

In all this, there will be some new truly heavy-handed government mandates that are likely to have major unintended consequences that could really make it more difficult for companies to hedge their risks. That's why I say a lot of businesses may not recognize how it impacts upon them. Maybe it is not the company themselves, it is other companies that they deal with, that they have to deal with. If they can't hedge their risks properly, they will find themselves at odds with being able to prosper and do as well next year as they have in the past.

So when the Senate bill tries to do this, what it's really doing is adding huge new costs to risk management. What will that do? That will needlessly tie up companies' moneys that could otherwise be used to create jobs. It goes back to that little analogy I had before saying that if you have a company that says we have X number of dollars in the bank that we are intending to use for new expansion, production, or growth, now that money may be unfortunately tied up over here through all the new regulation and otherwise, and capital margin requirements and the like. And if they can't have it over here to grow the company, prosper the company, and create new jobs and the like, and new benefits for their employees because it's now tied up, who hurts? Who pays the price? It is the employees, it is the economy, it is the community that that business finds itself in.

Now, to all that truly terrible legislation that we see sitting in the Senate that Senator Reid is trying to push through without a true committee process where we could really get into the weeds and find out what is in those 1,300-plus pages and try to understand all the consequences, intended and otherwise, the Republicans do have a comprehensive substitute. It has received unanimous support from the party and those here who have worked on it, and also significant support from those players, both involved with the discussion, academics and otherwise.

And it is really also the only truly bipartisan plan that's out there. Because whether you are a Republican or Democrat, I think most in this country agree on one theme: No more bailouts. So it's bipartisan in the theme, it's bipartisan in the merits, it's bipartisan in the actual language. Its central theme, as I say, is no more bailouts. And our plan depends on an expedited bankruptcy rather than a government-run bailout fund.

Let me give you one, two, three, four points that are in it. It provides comprehensive transparency and accountability among the major traders in the derivative markets without setting up that Byzantine new regulatory regime that I just mentioned a minute ago. It allows for real consumer protection, important, without a bureaucracy that separates consumer protection from

what we call prudential regulation, safety and soundness like we saw with Fannie and Freddie.

I will digress there for 30 seconds. That simply means that you are not going to say that there is somebody sitting over here looking over an institution saying, well, I think you should do this in order to be safe and sound and prudentially run, and you are going to have somebody over here in a totally different silo, a different agency, who is going to be saying, well, I think you should have a consumer product that works this way or works that way. And if they are working at cross- purposes, which one prevails? Well, at the end of the day, the consumer is the one that hurts.

Additionally, third point, the Republican plan reins in the Fed instead of giving it vast new powers. It goes to that point I raised before. The Democrat majority plan in the House and the Senate says, ``Hey, Fed, you've been doing such a wonderful job with monetary policy, you've been doing such a wonderful job with regulation of the institutions under you, you've done such a wonderful job, Federal Reserve, with being able to see the calamities down the road.'' I say of course that all tongue in cheek. They say, ``Well, we're going to make you even larger and more expansive and grow in power.''

Well, not for the Republicans, not for most Americans. Most Americans want us to rein in the Fed. And that is what the Republican bill will do, by giving it less powers than it has right now.

Fourthly, the Republican plan responsibly deals with Fannie and Freddie, one of the biggest culprits in the entire process. Believe it or not, the Senate bill, the Dodd-Frank-Obama bill, does absolutely nothing with regard to Fannie and Freddie and the GSEs. Think about this little number right now. You hear about all the money that was spent over the last year or so out of taxpayer pockets, whether it goes to the Wall Street bailouts, whether it goes to the auto industry, whether it goes to AIG or Bear Stearns and you just name it, all those billions and billions of dollars went out the door. You know which bailout really trumps even all those combined? It would be the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, where, as I mentioned I think earlier this evening, the number is close to $400 billion already projected to cost the taxpayer over the next 10 years. And the President's plan, the Dodd-Frank plan, is silent on trying to do anything about that.

Not only are they silent about doing anything about that, it's silent as to putting any limits to it. Right now there is no limit to the amount of money that can come out of your pocket and my pocket to bail out these institutions. Something should have been included in there. They did not.

Remember, finally, it was largely government that got us into this situation we find ourselves in in the first place. It was the implosion of Fannie and Freddie that created so many of the other problems that we see across the economic spectrum as we see it today. It was also the easy money policy of the Fed and the errors that were made over time there. It was the misplaced incentives and downright requirements in the housing finance sector that basically encouraged or forced firms to lend to borrowers that shouldn't have been buying a home in the first place. It was government regulators that didn't do their job whom the Democrats would like to further empower and provide a false sense of security and hamper the free markets.

It was all those problems that brought us to the situation that we find ourselves in today. None of those problems are addressed either at all or in a correct manner in the legislation that we see in the Senate right now.

Now is the time that we have an opportunity to do right for the American public. Now is the time we have an opportunity to do right for the economy. Now is the time we have an opportunity to create new jobs and new expansions in the economy, to make the economy of tomorrow better for businesses, for small community banks, for small communities across this country, for families as well. But we can only do that if we work in a truly bipartisan manner to go through the process and begin the discussions on what the root causes of these problems were and to come up with a no-bailout philosophy and approach to this that addresses the GSEs--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--that reins in the excessive powers of the Federal Reserve, and addresses the other concerns of job creation and the other concerns of regulation that I have addressed already this evening. If we do that, then we will be successful for this generation and generations to come.

I look forward to actually being able to get to that point in time. I look forward to hearing from the other side of the aisle and hearing from the Senate that the bill they are pushing right now, the Dodd- Frank-Obama bill, is being pulled and they are no longer going to force the votes, but instead they are willing to open up a true and honest dialogue to get the job done. When that time comes, I will be willing to work with them to accomplish that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 10 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 28, 2010, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of former Congressman Bob Franks. Bob heard the call to serve the State he loved, and did so faithfully, throughout his illustrious career. Congressman Robert Douglas Franks was born on September 21, 1951. It is true that until Bob was taken away from us, following a hard-fought battle with cancer, he still served the people of New Jersey as the President of the Health Care Institute of New Jersey . . . a position he loved as much for the work he was doing, as for the time he could spend with his close-knit family.

Bob's stellar career as a New Jersey Republican began very early on when he organized political movements such as the New Jersey Teenage Republicans. Bob was as principled as he was outspoken and he soon became a force to be reckoned with in New Jersey politics.

Bob is widely considered to be the primary catalyst behind the New Jersey Republican resurgence in the 1990s. However, he is equally as well-known for his willingness to be bipartisan--especially in working with former political rivals. Bob's wisdom and grace far outpaced his age and it could not be more true that this loss is felt deeply across party lines.

His influence in New Jersey is well-known and stands as a testament to the best aspects of elected office. An ardent supporter of voluntary term-limits, Bob practiced what he preached and left Congress after 4 dedicated terms. His desire to serve our State was unfaltering.

Bob is not only survived by his adoring family, but by a State that remains thankful for his years of devoted service as well as a Congress of peers who will remember him as a man of conviction and principle.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Dr. Barbara-Jayne Lewthwaite upon being inaugurated as the 12th President of Centenary College in Hackettstown, New Jersey.

Dr. Lewthwaite is only the second woman and second former faculty member to hold the position since Centenary's founding in 1867. Part of the Centenary College community for more than 20 years, she brings to the post sound academic credentials, strong educational leadership skills and valuable business acumen.

Dr. Lewthwaite was appointed Acting President of the College on January 1, 2009. Since that time, she has used her academic background to enhance the College's mission: providing a student-centered liberal arts education with a career focus and a special emphasis on community service.

Before assuming the Presidency, Dr. Lewthwaite served Centenary in several leadership positions, including Chief Academic Officer and Acting Chief Operating Officer. As a member of Centenary's Executive Staff since 2003, she spearheaded significant accomplishments at the college: supporting the development of a faculty of talented teachers and scholars; upgrading academic expectations that are grounded in the adoption of standards such as the Centenary Greater Expectation Learning Outcomes; leading the academic assessment movement that resulted in the College being the first in New Jersey to receive pre- accreditation from the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC); achieving extensive articulation agreements with local and global partners; and undertaking a major revision of the curriculum which included movement from a three-credit to a four-credit course curriculum, and numerous faculty-generated enhancements that have focused on experiential learning, service learning, global initiatives, and substantive new online offerings in the adult and traditional student programs on the graduate and undergraduate level.

Madam Speaker, we are fortunate to have Dr. Lewthwaite at the helm of Centenary College in northwestern New Jersey. With her leadership I am confident that Centenary will continue to provide high-quality education to its students, preparing them for the 21st Century.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Corporal Michael Jankiewicz, a recently fallen Army Ranger. Only 23 years old, this young man was killed in Afghanistan on April 9 when his Osprey helicopter crashed in Zabul province, just about 200 miles southwest of Kabul.

Michael grew up in my district. After graduating from Ramsey High School in 2006, he pursued his childhood dream and enlisted in the U.S. Army. You know, his father recalled that, even at 3 years old, Michael was talking about becoming a U.S. soldier. While pursuing his dream, he became a true hero, serving two tours in Iraq and two additional tours in Afghanistan with the 75th Ranger Regiment stationed out of Fort Benning, Georgia.

As an active Army Ranger, he saw some of the most dangerous action, but when Michael talked about his service to his family, his father says he would typically just say, ``I just can't wait to get back to my platoon.''

This young corporal was part of our Nation's premier light infantry force. Every day that he wore his uniform, he dedicated his best to this great country. He was among some of the best soldiers in the world because of the careful screening process and arduous training the Rangers must endure.

Michael is survived by his mother, Serena; by his father and stepmother, Anthony and Carmen; by his grandfather, Abraham Friedman; by his sister, Michelle; by his stepsister, Noemi Cagley; and by his stepbrother, Hector Emmanuelli.

His dedication to his country and to his fellow soldiers represents his tremendous sense of loyalty and selflessness. Corporal Michael Jankiewicz is a true American hero. His country will never forget him. He will never be forgotten by his friends, by his family, or by this country for whom he fought.

Madam Speaker, on September 11, 2001, almost 3,000 individuals were victims of the most devastating act of terror in our Nation's history. First responders and civilians, mothers and fathers, husband and wives, friends and neighbors, the terrorists acted with impunity toward their victims, and our Nation still mourns this tragic loss.

This evening I'd like to specifically remember one of those victims, and that is Richard J. Morgan. Morgan, or Dick as he was known to his friends, was many things to many people. He was an adoring husband to his wife, Patricia, a beloved father to his four children, a proud grandfather to his seven grandchildren, and a respected colleague to all that he worked with, and also a cherished friend to those who were fortunate enough to ever have known him.

Dick graduated with a degree in civil engineering from Manhattan College and an MBA from New York University, and he would go on to serve his Nation in the National Guard.

Then in 1967, he and Patricia settled down in the little town of Glen Rock, New Jersey, where they became active participants in their community and a local church as well.

For 41 years, Dick worked with Con Edison, being promoted all the way from being a splicer to serving as vice president of emergency management. It was in that capacity that Dick raced to the World Trade Center on that fateful Tuesday morning. And like so many other brave first responders, Dick responded to the call of duty. He ran into the smoke and the fire but, sadly, he was lost when the North Tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m. At the time of his death, Dick was coordinating the emergency response, along with the Fire Department of New York with their chief of department. Today, quite fittingly, Dick is the only civilian memorialized with the Fire Department of New York Randall's Island Training Facility for having given his life in the line of duty on September 11, 2001.

Recently, I became aware that Dick had not been nominated for the 9/ 11 Heroes Medal of Valor and, as a result, had been incorrectly classified as simply a visitor on the National September 11 Memorial, instead of a first responder classification that he deserved. So over the past few months my staff has worked with the Department of Justice to ensure that this heroic first responder was properly memorialized. And last month I was happy to hear that the family has been assured that their request has now been granted. And I am thankful to the Department of Justice, to my colleagues from New York, and the many others who assisted in swiftly rectifying this oversight.

Proper recognition for our fallen heroes is but a small token of gratitude when compared with the enormous sacrifice. Whether at the World Trade Center, on the battlefield, or in the communities, our soldiers and first responders, they all take a great risk to keep us safe, and they sometimes pay the tremendous sacrifice.

And what can we here do in return? Well, we can remember their service. We can live worthy of their sacrifice and take every single opportunity to thank them and the ones that they leave behind.

On behalf of a grateful Nation, I express my sincere gratitude to Dick Morgan and pledge to his family that his example will not be forgotten. Dick will always be remembered as a man who epitomized valor, cherished opportunity to serve, and actively made his community a better place. He earned the respect of so many through his hard work, through his commitment and a genuine interest in the lives and the fates of others.

So I am proud to represent Dick's family here in Congress, and our entire Nation can be proud of the sacrifice of this American hero.

Madam Speaker, today the Rochelle Park Police Department will hold its D.A.R.E. graduation ceremony with the fifth graders of the Midland School. The young people participating in this important program have made a commitment to say no to drugs, underage drinking, and

gang violence. They have done this with the support of Chief of Police Richard Zavinsky and D.A.R.E. Officer Douglas Arendacs.

Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or D.A.R.E., began as a small program in Los Angeles in 1983. Today, it is implemented in more than 75 percent of our Nation's school districts and in more than 43 other nations. This program allows children to defeat negative cultural influences by opening the lines of communication between law enforcement and youth, empowering students with confidence and courage to say no to drugs.

I am proud of the young men and women who participated in this program in Rochelle Park, and I would like to recognize them all for taking this step toward positive citizenship:

Jenna Alessi, Amna Bajwa, John Califano, Selena Cangialosi, Brittney Cappobianco, Britney Fischbach, John Gerber, Kevin Grieco, Karim Jassim, George Latko, Camron Mickens, Michael Palamara, Nire Rollins, Anthony Sorrentino, Gianni Veloz, Vraj Vyas, Lauren Abrams, Joshua Afocx, Yuna Chung, Jennifer Cichino, Lewyn Concepcion, Drew Every, Suraj Ghumwala, Matthew Kowalski, Alexandra Lehmbeck, Krishalei Locquiao, Samantha McElroy, Joseph Neu, Serena Nguyen, Kyle Ray, Ryan Lewis-Riley, Thadeja Richetts, Bruce Amundson, Kaitlyn Boylan, Heather Buse, Yusef Froogh, Cierra Gamble, T'Shawn Jennings, Owen Lapira, Lindsay Pacheco, Alyssa Poidomani, Steven Riley, Matthew Santana, Jesse Marie Sanzari, Christine Sawruk, Prince Seabrooks, Maicel Shenouda, Jason van der Wilt, Raymond Vasquez.

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to expand the number of 1-minutes to unlimited.

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to expand the number of 1-minutes to 10.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Within the discretion of the Chair, is the Chair responsible for explaining his basis for not expanding the number of 1-minutes so the American public can have a greater opportunity to hear the debate continue before the vote is taken today?

I thank the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this unconstitutional health care bill.

Today the majority seeks to enact its health care reform legislation. While, I appreciate the efforts of the majority to reform our health care system, it is hard to underestimate what a grave mistake it would be to enact this bill. It would fundamentally alter our citizens' relationship with their government. It would seriously jeopardize our nation's long-term prosperity. It would dampen the vitality of our nation's health care innovators. It would restrict choice and access to medical care for millions of our nation's elderly and poor. It would tax hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy in the midst of one of the most serious economic downturns in our nation's history. And for all this--for all of these thousands of pages and hundreds of new bureaus, boards, and bureaucracies--it won't make America any healthier. And perhaps more fundamentally this legislation does not solve the most pressing problem facing our health care sector; namely its upwardly spiraling cost growth. If the majority is successful in passing this bill, they will, at best, celebrate a narrow political victory at the expense of the American public, and at worst, send our nation further down the path towards financial catastrophe.

For the most part, Republicans and Democrats agree on the problems our health care system faces. Even though Americans spend

more on health care than any other country in the world, current projections assume that this level of spending will rise indefinitely. As this spending increases, it is consuming a greater and greater share of workers paychecks. Health insurance is too expensive, and some people with chronic illness struggle to access health care services. We agree on the problems.

But it is rare that a single piece of legislation can so crystallize the differences in governing philosophy between our two political parties. As a solution to these problems in our health care system, the Democrats would propose a massive increase in government involvement-- expanding current government run health programs, and creating new ones. Provisions in this legislation would restrict choice, and place greater control of health care in the hands of the federal government. For example, under the bill's terms, no longer would we exercise a number of freedoms that we now take for granted, such as whether to purchase health insurance or what medical benefits we feel are necessary. Under this bill, this is now a matter for the government to decide.

This is far, far removed from what our nation's founders envisioned. And indeed, I submit that, fundamentally, this legislation violates the Constitution and will be found unconstitutional when it is inevitably litigated through our judicial system. This legislation would require individuals to purchase private health insurance--health insurance that has been approved by the federal government--or pay a fine. While Congress is granted the authority to ``regulate commerce . . . among the several states,'' and the Supreme Court has long allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of ``economic'' activities that are not, strictly speaking, commerce, this is the first time in our nation's history that Congress would seek to regulate inactivity. And for the first time, Congress would mandate that individuals purchase a private good, approved by the government, as the price of citizenship. This requirement is plainly unconstitutional, and would violate the commerce clause. I have been speaking out on the unconstitutionality of this individual mandate on the House floor, in Budget Committee and through the Constitutional Caucus, of which I am the chair. If we allow that Congress has this authority under the Constitution, then there is virtually no limit on its authority to compel our nation's citizens to comply with the whims of a Congressional majority. If future Congresses feel that we don't eat enough vegetables, they could simply mandate that we purchase government approved salads. Or if future Congresses feel that our domestic auto industry needs a boost, they could mandate that we purchase a car from General Motors.

However, even if we allow that this bill is constitutional, it should still be rejected because it further deteriorates our nation's financial standing. In Congress, I have the pleasure of serving on the Budget Committee. Ever since I first arrived in Congress, witness after witness--Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative--who have appeared before the Committee have all noted the serious long-term funding issues that our country faces. Quite simply, we are running out of money to pay for an ever growing government. According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, America's three biggest entitlement programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, are projected to consume over 80 percent of the federal budget within a generation. And the single biggest driver of this increased cost is health care inflation. Medicare alone has a $36.3 trillion unfunded liability. This past week, three members of my staff were blessed with the birth of a child. As soon as those children took their first breath, they each assumed a health care debt of $121,000.

The majority claims that this bill would actually reduce the deficit, but this rests on a number of assumptions that are wildly unrealistic. The budget gimmicks in the bill have been well documented, but among the highlights are that it would: pay for 6 years of benefits with 10 years of taxes; raid the Social Security trust fund of $53 billion; double count the savings in Medicare to pay for a new entitlement; disregard the increased administrative costs of running these new programs; double count $70 billion in premiums for a new long-term care entitlement which would later have to be used to pay for benefits; and rely on unrealistic Medicare cuts.

This last point is perhaps the most important one. The chief actuary of the Department of Health and Human Services wrote, in a letter to Congress, that the Medicare cuts proposed in this bill are ``unrealistic'' and could ``jeopardize access to care'' for seniors. Independent analysis says that many hospitals and health care providers would simply leave Medicare altogether if these cuts are implemented. So, under the terms of this legislation, future Congresses would have to do something it has thus far shown no appetite for: limiting access to vital medical care for our nation's seniors.

Another major assumption made by the majority is that this legislation would enact a tough ``Cadillac tax'' on generous employer provided insurance plans. But this tax's implementation date has been pushed back to 2018; well after President Obama leaves office. For years, Congress has assumed in its revenue projections that millions of middle class tax filers should pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) each year. But every year, Congress has stepped in and passed legislation to prevent this from happening. Similarly, we should assume that a tax that is so unpopular that it must be pushed out 8 years before being implemented is a tax that may never realistically happen.

So this gargantuan health care entitlement, once fully implemented, would end up costing us approximately $200 billion per year, and then increasing at a rate of 8 percent per year. But we can not afford our current entitlements! How will we be able to afford this when the bill comes due? I worry that this bill is a fiscal disaster of the first order.

It should not have been this way. We had an opportunity to enact real health care reform--reform that would have set our nation on a prudent fiscal path, and one that would not have violated our Constitution. I and my Republican colleagues have proposed a series of reforms, such as enacting real medical liability reform; allowing individuals to purchase insurance across state lines; allowing individuals to purchase insurance through groups and trade associations the same way unions can; allowing small businesses to band together to purchase insurance; and eliminating the discrimination in the tax code against purchasing insurance through the individual market by allowing individuals to deduct insurance premiums the same way their employers can. While these proposals are not the final word on health care reform, they certainly would have served as a good starting point for bipartisan reform.

Instead we are left with this bill which, I am afraid, will do much harm but provide little benefit. I strongly urge that this bill be defeated, so that we can go back to the drawing board and find true bipartisan solutions to the problems facing our health care system.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill for two very important reasons. First, I believe that this bill fundamentally violates the U.S. Constitution and it will be found unconstitutional once it gets its way through the courts.

While Congress is given the power under the Constitution to regulate interstate activity, never before have we had to be required to purchase a private product--government approved--as a price of U.S. citizenship. This moves far beyond regulating economic activity into the realm of regulating inactivity.

If we allow that Congress has this authority under the Constitution, then there is no limit whatsoever of Washington's ability to micromanage our lives. In the future, if Congress feels our car industry needs a boost again, they can require us all, once again, to purchase a car from GM. That is not exactly what our Founding Fathers had in mind.

Thirty-seven States have already filed legislation to challenge this bill. Two States have already passed laws threatening lawsuits if this bill passes tonight. One State lawmaker has pointed out that that's two-thirds of the States of this great country, enough States to change the Constitution.

In addition, there's another reason it should be rejected. It's because it puts us hopelessly in debt. Democrats assert that their bill would reduce the deficit over the next 10 years, and more thereafter. Utter nonsense. As the ranking member has repeatedly pointed out, there are budget gimmicks in here and double counting galore. Your very own actuaries from the HHS, what do they say about that? They say that the bill is ``unrealistic.'' Furthermore, it would ``jeopardize access to care'' for seniors citizens.

So, then, what can we count on after this massive program passes and we have $2.5 trillion in additional spending at an 8 percent growth rate? Think about it. We can't even pay our own debts today. Please, don't add another unconstitutional, economic burden to this and future generations.

Vote down this bill.

I thank the gentlelady.

In my hand right here--and the chairman may know what I have here--is a document from your side of the aisle which basically is your talking points to your communication folks and the like saying that you want to talk about information. The memo actually says to your Members, We cannot emphasize enough, do not allow yourselves to get into a discussion of the details of CBO scores or any other such narratives. It continues to say, Do not give them--meaning Republicans or the media and such--grounds for debating the issue. Isn't that fascinating that, after all of this, the truth comes out?

The fact of the matter is that you do not want to discuss the details. You do not want to get into the facts of the matter. You want to talk in hyperbole and rhetoric.

Well, let me spend my next 2 minutes telling the American public what the actual details are and what the CBO says about your bill.

Number one: Delayed benefits, immediate taxes. This bill raises taxes before any other major benefits would go into effect. Ninety-eight percent of the major benefits don't start until 2014, but we immediately start taking taxes out of the American public's pocket.

Two: The CLASS Act has been described by Members of their House, Senator Conrad, as a Ponzi scheme. Why is that? Something in there called the CLASS Act appears to make the bill cost less than it does because, as the CBO states, the program would pay out far less in benefits than it would receive in premiums under the 10-year budget window.

What does that simply mean? That means we will be collecting taxes for years and years and years before we actually pay out any benefits.

Thirdly, no doc fix. I've heard other people talk about that. That 10-year doc fix will cost $371 billion. If you really want to talk about the facts--as obviously you do not want to--you

would have included the doc fix in here to give us a better picture of what this bill costs.

Raid on Social Security. A raid on Social Security in this bill, in the presentation that you're making. I also heard somebody talk about AARP. Where are they talking about the fact that in your presentation on the numbers, they rely on $53 billion in new Social Security revenue to achieve the appearance, only the appearance, of deficit reduction.

The fact of the matter is these revenues are meant to stay and pay for Social Security benefits, not to fund a new entitlement.

Fourthly, double-counting of Medicare savings benefits, the other side of the aisle claims that $520 billion in Medicare cuts and $210 billion in Medicare taxes in the bill will improve solvency of the Medicare trust fund. But that's not the case. You're double-counting. Look, either Medicare savings improves solvency on the one hand, or they pay for this brand-new entitlement. You can't have it both ways. But I guess that's why you don't want to get into, as your very own talking point memo says, do not get into discussing the details.

One last one, if time permits, your legislation relies on unrealistic budget cuts. This is not my suggesting that. This is what your very own actuary at HAS says.

Your very own actuary said this, that the level of cuts was ``unrealistic and finally jeopardized access to care for senior citizens.'' That's not me saying this; that's not this side of the aisle. That is your very own actuary saying what your bill will do is jeopardize care to senior citizens. When you begin to discuss the details, you will agree to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor, as my colleagues do, the medical doctors as well, saying we do all agree that we do need reform here; it is just that we are listening to the American public who says not the reform of the ObamaCare or the Pelosi legislation that we are looking at that is before us right now.

And I hear from the gentleman from New York that we need to talk about the facts, issues like Social Security and Medicare and the like. It seems to me I heard that in committee. The gentleman from New York actually submitted an amendment to repeal Medicare, if I am not mistaken. So I am not sure whether his constituents know that when he rails against us on the position of Medicare, he was the author of the amendment to repeal Medicare.

But let us not digress on those other issues; let us talk about the facts of the health care bill before us today. Interestingly enough on that, while we would like to talk about the facts on these issues, we know that your side, the Democrat side of the aisle, does not want to do so. Why do we know that? Because here is a memo that came out of talking points for the Democrat majority, Thursday, March 18, saying that to these very points on what they should be saying and what they shouldn't be saying: We cannot emphasize enough. Do not allow yourselves to get into a discussion of the details of the CBO scores.

Further on, it goes on to say: Do not give them--and who is ``them''; I guess, the American public. Do not give them grounds by debating the details, for example, a March 1 letter. Again, focus on other issues, essentially, is what it says. So that is their talking points, to stay off message, don't talk about the facts.

Well, here are some of the facts. The bill is replete with budget gimmicks. Why health care reform will cost more than Democrats say it will, here are some of the facts:

Delayed benefits and immediate taxes. The bill will raise taxes around $60 billion before almost all, 98 percent, of the benefits will go into effect. Do you hear that? We will be taking tax dollars out of our pockets before 98 percent of the benefits will ever go into effect.

Secondly, the CLASS Act. What does CBO, Congressional Budget Office, say about it? They say this program will pay out far less in benefits than it will receive in premiums over the 10-year budget window. What is that? Well, the gentleman from New York may be familiar with the Bernie Madoff situation. Well, that is what this is. According to Senator Conrad, it is a Ponzi scheme.

Next, the doc fix that was talked about here. They do not include anything to deal with the doc fix. That will cost $371 billion. And why don't they? Well, it says here in their talking points, or in your talking points, the inclusion of a full SGR doc fix repeal would undermine the reform budget's neutrality. So again, Do not allow yourself to get into a discussion of the details of the CBO scores in textural narratives.

Why don't they put the CBO score and the doc fix in it, because they know then the bill would be honest and fair as to the cost of it.

Fourthly, raid Social Security. Again, where is AARP on this one when they are going to raid Social Security to the tune of $53 billion in new Social Security revenue to give us the appearance of a deficit cut? These revenues were meant to benefit Social Security, not to be a new entitlement and give them cover.

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman not yield on the facts then?

I am responding with a direct answer.