Floor Statements

I can tell by looking at the proverbial clock on the wall at 8:30 that an important election that was just held today with the voting booths now closed just one half hour ago and the ballots all being collected in their boxes and brought to the appropriate places for counting, and we will see--potentially during the course of the next 60 minutes--just how that election should turn out.

Just as an aside, for those who are with us here this evening taking part in this discussion on the constitutionality, or the lack thereof, the unconstitutionality of the health care legislation that's about to come before this House again, we will be interspersing some of the election results so we can keep everyone apprised of just how those elections are turning out.

I mentioned the fact that the election was held today, and I'm sure there will be pundits on the air tonight talking about exactly what do the election results mean up in the State of Massachusetts, not just for the State of Massachusetts, but for the country as a whole; and a number of them will be saying what I have said before, that it's not so much just looking at those two individual candidates, but what their respective parties stand for, and more specifically, what the President of the United States and this administration has stood for over these last 12 months and what his seminal program, his major issue, has been, and that of course is this health care, so-called ``reform,'' the imposition of new mandates and taxes and totally changing the health care configuration and how the delivery of it is done in this country.

Some would make the case that what the election that just closed now 32 minutes ago in Massachusetts is about is whether or not the American public agrees with what the Obama administration has put forth as their major proposal is changing the health care delivery system in the United States or not. We will see the results, if not in the next 60 minutes, at least sometime tonight.

More importantly, though, than what the outcome of that one election will be is what will Congress be doing with that legislation here in the House and in the Senate this week or next week or whenever they decide to bring back that issue for a vote, and we anticipate that they will.

The fundamental issue, though--this is the one that we'll be discussing in here--is not some of the minutia of that health care legislation, not some of the small language that is buried within-- first in the thousand pages that came before this House that I would hazard a guess that probably just about no one on the other side of the aisle read thoroughly and had a complete comprehension of what they were voting on when they voted ``yes,'' nor clearly in the 2,000 pages that came forth in the Senate variation and version of that health care bill.

It's not some of the minutia, not some of the small language, and not so much the details that should be the first question that any Member of Congress should be asking themselves when they're about to vote on that bill; but it's rather the fundamental issue of whether that piece of legislation is constitutional at all.

In my pocket here is my wallet, and in my wallet is my voting card-- actually, I have it over here because we just finished voting a little while ago. And as you know, Madam Speaker, every time we vote, we put it in one of these little slots here before we vote red, green, or yellow.

I always suggest to my colleagues that before they vote on whatever the legislation is, they should be asking themselves one fundamental question: Is the bill that they're about to vote on constitutional or not? Does the Constitution of the United States give us, as Members of this body, the authority to pass that law that we're about to vote on?

We are all required, when we become new Congresspeople every 2-year terms, to raise our hands and to say that we support and defend the Constitution of the United States. As a matter of fact, I was just in New Jersey earlier today where now-Governor Chris Christie did the same thing, raised his hand and said that he is supporting and defending not only the Constitution of New Jersey, but also the Constitution of the United States as well. We, as Members of this body, of the House of Representatives, do that every 2 years when we have the honor and privilege of being elected by our constituents at home; we come to Washington and say we will support and defend the Constitution.

As an aside, there is one member of our delegation from Texas who has suggested that it should be a requirement that every Member of Congress and their staffs should read the Constitution at least once each term. Well, I'm not going to say that we have to mandate that; I think it would not be a bad thing for each Member to do it each term. I go through the Constitution on a regular basis, and I hope that other Members would as well. But we have all held up our hands and said that we are going to uphold it, so that is why I suggest to each Member that before they vote on any bill, that they ask themselves is that bill constitutional.

Now, the health care bill that we're talking about here is far more sweeping than just about any other piece of legislation that I have ever dealt with in my short term here in Congress. And I think it is far more devastating and sweeping than any other legislation that we have seen in generations. It would impact upwards of one-sixth of our economic activity of this country. But far more important than that, it would impact our very fundamental liberties that our Founding Fathers intended that our Constitution was designed to protect.

And so that is what our discussion is going to be tonight. And we will eagerly await the outcome of the election in the State of Massachusetts to see what the voters of that State would like to have their voices come in on. But I think the voices of that State will say, whether they support the nature or some aspects of this health care bill or not, I think all of those citizens of Massachusetts, as with the citizens of the great State of New Jersey would also agree with me, that whatever we do on health care in this country should at the very least be constitutional.

Now, one of the primary aspects of this bill that I would suggest has a flaw in it with regard to the constitutionality of it is the health care mandate. And what is that? In the bill, for the first time ever, I would suggest, in the history of the United States, Congress is going to suggest that we are not going to try to be regulating activity, but we are going to try to regulate inactivity.

For a long time now--well, basically, you can go back to the 1930s and the New Deal courts and FDR and the like--Congress has grown in its authority and had the Federal Government grow in its size as far as its reach of regulation and taxation of economic activity in this country. And so now you can see just about every aspect of your life in one way, shape or form having a little bit of a reach of the Federal Government into it as the Federal Government tries to regulate in one way, shape or form.

But that is always in the area of activity. If you're in interstate commerce some how or other, if you're a trucking firm, the Federal Government is going to reach out and regulate your activity. If you're selling some sort of product either in your State or outside of

your State, the Federal Government is going to try to come in and regulate that form of activity. If you're in any other form of business, in State or out of State, the Federal Government is going to try and step in in some way, shape or form, I would suggest, and try to regulate that activity.

But never before since our Constitution was first created in 1787 has the Federal Government said we are now going to regulate inactivity. We are going to start regulating you even if you do absolutely nothing. Even if you just stay home, don't buy anything, don't do anything, we are now going to regulate your activity. And we're going to do that regulation in a more personal and profound nature than any other aspect that we've been talking about here on the floor in the last several months or years, and that is your health care and your health insurance.

So in this legislation that the administration has proposed that has passed out of this House, that has passed in the Senate, and now is in some area of compromise on the other side of the aisle, the Federal Government, this administration says, can regulate inactivity. They can step into your house and say, because you are not doing something that the Federal Government believes you should be doing--what is that? buying insurance--we're going to penalize you and we're going to do that with a tax. We have never seen this before. And I would suggest that that is an overreach, a far overreach of what the Founding Fathers ever intended for this government, this Federal Government to be able to do.

It is, therefore, a fundamental flaw, an unconstitutional flaw in this legislation. It is one of the main reasons why I voted against it when it came in this House, and it will be a continuing reason why I will vote against it if ever it comes back on the floor of this House again.

Now, I see I have been joined by some of my colleagues from the floor who have spoken on the difficulties or the problems or the demerits of the health care bill in the past. As I said in my opening comments, there are a number of those areas that we can talk about with regard to the taxation aspect or with regard to the fact that you're putting the government--and I'm looking at a doctor now--between you and your doctor and other problems with this bill as well. There are a whole host of reasons why this legislation is bad as it impacts upon us as individuals and our health quality in this country. But as I said at the beginning, the most profound aspect of it is that it's unconstitutional, and it's unconstitutional because of this mandate.

With that, I am pleased to be joined by Ms. Foxx, who would like to speak on this topic as well.

I thank the gentlelady for joining us on the floor this evening and for her remarks for the last several minutes on this very most important issue. As the gentlelady who has come to the floor on numerous occasions in the past to speak to this most profound and fundamental issue, the protecting of our constitutional rights, I once again thank her.

With that, I will now just turn to the gentleman from Georgia, who is familiar, I'm sure, with James Madison and ``The Federalist Papers'' where Mr. Madison said, ``In the first place, it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated powers.'' Congress, in other words, was not set forth free by our Founding Fathers to have unlimited grants of authority but, rather, certain prescribed ones.

With that, perhaps you could help enumerate and share on that point on which Madison was so eloquently quoted 200 years ago. The gentleman from Georgia.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his passionate statements and litany of facts with regard to the unconstitutionality of this underlying bill. And within all that, there is the question of: What does that mean to me? The unconstitutionality.

What it comes right down to is this: That the Founders were profound and wise in their thinking in establishing the Constitution, and to do so not for their generation but for posterity as well, so that our rights and our liberties would be protected. And I think that is the case you were making.

I thank the gentleman for laying it out so clearly to us. I will yield in just one moment to the gentleman from Utah. But before that, I think I'll be yielding to the gentleman from Texas, because at the beginning of this hour I promised we would bring periodic updates as to how this very important vote is occurring in the State of Massachusetts.

I appreciate the gentleman from Texas for the update, for your comments; and just as you're all hoping, as we are, that they will move quickly with the appointment, so too we hope that the rest of the Massachusetts congressional delegation will listen to the voters from the State of Massachusetts and do the right thing when the votes come here in the House.

With that, I am very pleased now to turn the floor over to the gentleman from Utah, a gentleman who is on the floor frequently speaking about constitutional issues, the gentleman who helped found the Constitutional Caucus here in the House, the gentleman from Utah.

With that, I will just have an update from the Cloakroom that on the Massachusetts race that the Republican candidate Brown has won and the Democrat has conceded with 53 to 46 percent on the votes. Thank you.

My shot is just to be able to bring this issue to the floor and to the American public and to Members of Congress as well. As my opening comment was the importance of looking at the constitutionality of any legislation, or particularly this legislation--you probably recall this--I was not the first one to bring this issue up. Reporters were actually the ones who brought this up to our leadership here in the House and to the White House as well. I wasn't there when it happened. All I know is what I read in the paper.

But when the issue of the constitutionality, whether it was the mandate provision that we are talking about principally here or the other aspects as well, my understanding from what I read in the press is when the reporter asked Speaker Pelosi about, Did you consider the constitutionality of this legislation, she just laughed it off and said, Of course not. We are not looking at that.

My understanding is, likewise, when that question was posed to the administration, Did you consider the constitutionality of the health care bill, their answer was even more emphatic: no, we didn't look at that at all. That is so profound of an answer, to think that the administration would not look at the constitutionality of a piece of legislation that is going to impact upon personal choices of the health decisions of Americans and one-sixth of the economy as well.

The Founders understood this issue as far as protecting our freedoms and our liberties and that you need a document in order to do so. One of our first Chief Justices, Chief Justice Marshall, famously observed that the powers of the legislature, here in the Congress, are defined and limited, as the gentleman from Georgia just enumerated the 18 powers in it, and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten in the Constitution as written.

What he said was that the Constitution--I have a copy over here--was written because we want to put down the limitations on the power of the government to go and exercise authority over the public to a limited factor so the public still has some freedom and liberty at the end of the day. He continued on with that by saying, Should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishments of objects not entrusted--perhaps some of those list of requirements or ideas that this lady who called you from Alabama, was it--that she would like somebody to take care of her for her--should Congress under the pretext of executing its powers pass laws via accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the national government--this is where I yield back to you on the Federalism issue--it would become the painful duty of this tribunal--that meaning the U.S. Supreme Court--should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land.

What does that mean? That means that Congress does not have the ability to say that something is constitutional just because we say it is. Congress does not have the ability of saying that something is necessary and proper just because we say it is. Congress does not have the ability to say something is providing the good and general welfare for the country and therefore is constitutional just because we say it is.

We have a Constitution that is a contract entered into by the people of this country with their government defining what the authority is on the various levels of government, and we here as Members of Congress must live within the terms of that contract. We cannot go outside of the terms of the contract any more than any one of us can go outside the terms of a contract that we entered into when we buy a house or buy a car or enter a contract with some store or what have you.

We are limited by what the Constitution does and says. That is what we are trying to ask that this administration keep in mind and what we are asking the Speaker to keep in mind as well when they bring forth a bill to the floor trying to do something that we all agree needs to be done, and that is to reform the health care delivery system in this country. But we would suggest that it be done in a way that is constitutional and protects the freedoms and liberties of the American people.

And with that, I yield to the gentleman whatever time remains.

I am trying to think of the quote. You can try to help me out here. ``States were created as the----''

``--laboratory of democracy'' so all of those experiments could go on. Instead, what we have are the States becoming the guinea pigs for the democracy because the States are being controlled by the Federal Government in a way that is not the way the American public would like to see it.

So I thank the gentleman from Utah for, once again, joining us on the floor in an eloquent and educational format, as you always do. I appreciate that in a commonsense way that we can all understand it as well.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2996--Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2010:

1. Project Name--Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge Land Acquisition Project

Requesting Member--Scott Garrett

Bill Number--H.R. 2996, Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2010

Account--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Land Acquisition

Requesting Entity--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuse, 1547 County Route 565, Sussex, NJ 07461

Description of the Project--This funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund will further consolidate refuge ownership and important habitat, increase recreational opportunities within the refuge, and maintain the water quality in the Highlands region of New Jersey. The national wildlife refuge system was created to ensure protection of ecologically sensitive wildlife species and the Wallkill River NWR was added to the system because of the importance of the biodiversity along the river. Adding these 237 acres to the refuge would also meet the criteria of the Land and Water Conservation Fund by providing additional opportunities for public recreation, outdoor education and research, and by protecting open space and habitat for wildlife, including endangered and threatened species, in our rapidly developing state.

Description of the Spending Plan--($1,400,000)

The $1.4 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in FY 2010 will further consolidate refuge ownership and important habitat, increase recreational opportunities within the refuge, and maintain the water quality in the Highlands region of New Jersey. The national wildlife refuge system was created to ensure protection of ecologically sensitive wildlife species and the Wallkill River NWR was added to the system because of the importance of the biodiversity along the river. Adding these acres to the refuge would also meet the criteria of the Land and Water Conservation Fund by providing additional opportunities for public recreation, outdoor education and research, and by protecting open space and habitat for wildlife, including endangered and threatened species, in our rapidly developing state.

Total--$1,400,0000

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition.

I yield myself 4 minutes.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his amendment, but more than that, I should say I thank the gentleman for addressing this larger issue of CRAs for a number of months. I have claimed time in opposition just on the amendment because I think we can probably work this out in a different way.

The gentleman and I worked for a long time trying to address the issue of the credit rating agencies because both of us realize that when you lay out the reasons why we are in this financial mess that we're in right now, we may disagree on this point or that point as to exactly how we got here, but both of us, I believe, came to the conclusion that CRAs played a huge, huge part to bring us to where we are today with this financial mess. And the reason it did was because so many people failed to exercise what we would call proper market discipline when they made their investments, whether that was a small investor, a middle-size investor, or even the so-called ``knowledgeable'' investors on Wall Street failed to use what, in normal times, they would inherently have inside of them to say, What is the proper decisionmaking that I should make before I make this investment or that investment? What risks should I take here or there? And why was that, though, is the question.

Well, we looked at a whole bunch of things and we tried to come up with changes to the regulations of CRAs, the credit rating agencies, and we made a lot of changes that were improvements. But I think we came down to one point, that there was too much reliance upon credit rating agencies. Just because a CRA came out and said that on this particular security or this particular financial product that was rated AAA, regardless of what was actually in the package, regardless of the fact that maybe it was just a compilation of subprime mortgages with no likelihood whatsoever that they would ever be paid off, they got the AAA's seal of approval, and people invested in it. And, of course, the rest is history.

We look at it, one of the reasons why we think they got the seal of approval and then why investors looked at that and said that was okay was because they had the seal of approval from the Federal Government. The CRAs were listed as NRSROs, Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations. So the investor, large or small, sophisticated or not, said, Well, if the Federal Government is going to put its imprimatur on these organizations, on these CRAs by saying they are nationally recognized, if the Federal Government is going to put its stamp of approval, let's say their Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on these entities, then they must be okay and the decisions they are making must be okay. So that is what led to their decisions.

That is why, in committee, Ranking Member Bachus proposed a change to this. He changed it from ``nationally recognized'' to ``nationally registered,'' merely that these entities were registered. No seal of approval, no stamp of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, just that they had gone through

the motions and had simply registered with the government as being a nationally registered statistical rating organization. That is why I think it made good sense to take away that seal of approval, and that is why I also believe that this legislation, this amendment in committee passed in a bipartisan manner out of committee.

Now, I recognize that I am actually on the floor now, oddly enough, defending the actions of the committee here to a change. And I understand the potential problems, but I would suggest that perhaps other things could be done other than just stripping this out and going back to the way it was before. I would suggest that we leave it as ``nationally registered statistical rating organizations,'' and as we go forward through the process, if we find--maybe it's minutia, maybe it's not, as far as some States' regulations or other Federal regulations that refer to this. I bet you there is a better, simpler way to just correspond this back for existing contracts and what have you, and I would look forward to working with the chairman and the other committee's chairman to solve those problems in the future.

I appreciate the chairman's comments and look forward to seeing how this can be dealt with if this bill eventually does pass and goes over to the Senate and into the conference.

Yes.

There is that comment, and also there is the understanding that we are not talking about the other CRA. Although, if we could make a UC, and if we could put that as being a cause--no, I guess we can't do that. That's a bridge too far.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I was just at the microphone a moment ago and speaking about the recognition that I think we have from both sides of the aisle that the CRAs, credit rating agencies, were part and parcel to the causes of the financial situation that we find ourselves in right now.

During the time, I raised two out of probably three significant points on this and what we try to need to do when it comes to reform. I mentioned the fact that we need to reduce investors' reliance upon rating agencies. I mentioned, also, that we need to encourage investor due diligence, which sort of goes with it, if you are going to reduce reliance and they have to be more due diligent.

The third point I didn't raise was that we need to have increased competition between the credit rating agencies. Unfortunately, if you look at the bill before us, actually, title V of the bill includes a number of provisions that will basically exacerbate the current problems within the industry and, as I said on the floor yesterday, that actually make it harder, make it more difficult for investors to actually get the information that they need in order to make those decisions that they have to before they invest.

If you go back a couple of years, actually, if you go back 3 years, we passed the credit rating agency reform legislation--and it was about 3 years ago. The main focus of that reform back then was to do what? It was to try to increase competition between the various rating agencies. There are only about three major ones, but we were going to try to make smaller ones to get into the market with more competition. Maybe we could eliminate some of the problems I have already stated.

That was just 3 years ago, and the reason then that I voted just a short time ago this year against the legislation that came out of committee, that was going to try to reform the CRAs, was because it did the exact opposite. It would basically decrease the competition in the industry. I think we need more competition.

The reason that the legislation that came out of the committee, I thought, would decrease competition is because, well, it would have imposed a whole bunch of new liability on the CRAs, and it would just basically discourage them to get into the industry at all. That's maybe one of the reasons why in the committee's language there was a provision in it that says we are not going to let you out. Once you are an NRSRO, once you are registered, or recognized I should say, we are not going to let you out of it. They realize with all of this additional registration, with all this additional liability, no one would want to be a CRA anymore.

The amendment that we have before us recognizes that problem, that we want to have competition, but if you have all of these additional rules, regulations, and liabilities on them, they are all going to flee. We believe that we can come to a proverbial middle ground on this. That is to say, allow those CRAs, credit rating agencies that are of the smaller size, that is net revenues of $250 million or less in a year, to be able to retain the ability to deregister. That's what the legislation does before us.

With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

I will just close by saying that I thank the gentleman for his support of the legislation, or no opposition to the amendment. I appreciate the very many, many months of working together on this issue and other issues as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition.

I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Chair, I guess here is an example of the old saying, ``Here we go again.'' The CFPA, an entity that we have already discussed both today and yesterday, is an idea of contracting consumer choice, putting limitations on the consumers' ability to buy products that they need and want, and all the time, but at the same time, causing a cost to the overall system of credit and jobs in this country.

The additional cost to the CFPA has already been examined by outside organizations and has been seen to have a negative impact for this country to grow ourselves out of the economic morass that we find ourselves in today.

Experts have said, and we have yet to hear anyone from the other side of the aisle refute these studies, nor, for that matter, when we asked the other side of the aisle earlier, from the gentleman from North Carolina, I believe, do they have any studies to refute these or to present the case that actually would go in the opposite direction, they said no or had no answer.

Experts have shown that the CFPA alone would add a cost of credit to the system between 1.25 or 1.4 to 1.6, as I always say, about 1.5 percentage points to the cost of credit in this country. What does that mean? Even in the case of reverse mortgages, I guess it would apply that you would say that the cost of your credit, if you have a 6 percent loan now would go up to around 7, 7.5 percent. Just the act of borrowing will be made harder by the cost of the underlying bill.

Now we see here with this amendment, if the CFPA was not omnipotent enough with their power to reach in basically every single corner of the economy of this country, now we are going to let them go even a little built further.

Now I say all that with the understanding that reverse mortgages sometimes in the past have a history in certain cases--not all, certainly--of causing problems for our seniors, and that is certainly something that regulators need to and have the ability to take a look at. But this certainly is not the answer. This is crafted in such a way that would broaden the CFPA powers and hurt credit.

One other point on this as well. When you are hurting the credit markets of this country, you are also hurting the opportunity to grow this economy with regard to jobs. I think that same study, as well, gave us a number around 4.3 percent reduction in the increase of jobs. What does that mean to you and me? Well, with unemployment around 10 percent, that means that we could be looking at an additional million people in this country who will not be able to get jobs.

How does that help seniors? Seniors who may be working or not working, seniors who have people or other people in their families that are working, how does it help any senior or help anyone in this country if we are going to put more impediments and roadblocks in the way to this country growing again, to getting credit down again and getting unemployment back down from the 10 percent that we find ourselves in today?

I stand opposed to this amendment and opposed to putting additional powers in the Federal Government and the CFPA and within the authorities that they have already.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Does the gentlewoman have other speakers?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself just 20 seconds.

To the chairman's comment with regard to our study, which, as he said, is simply a quantification of ideology, whenever he has an issue like that, I just think that that is an abandonment of originality because any time that we have a study or what have you, he just refers back to ideology.

We would always ask the other side of the aisle, ideological or otherwise, we would be happy to see any study to support anything that is in this bill that will actually not harm our economy nor create hardships for the creation of jobs nor create hardships for creating increases to credit. We would like it, ideological or otherwise.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a man not of ideology alone but a man of facts and figures, a man on the right side of the issue.

Madam Chair, the American people have spoken loud and clear. They have spoken that they are opposed to more taxpayer-funded bailouts. The American people have said they are opposed to job-destroying legislation. The American people have said they are opposed to growing and expanding and increasing the size and spending of the Federal Government.

The majority bill that we had before us earlier is a bill that fails on all counts to listen to the American public. There is no one on the other side of the aisle who can deny that their bill will continue taxpayer-funded bailouts. There is no one on the other side of the aisle who can deny that their bill will continue the destruction of jobs in this country.

And, finally, there is no one on the other side of the aisle who can honestly deny that their bill will not create a more expensive, expanding government. Their bill will create bailouts, destroy jobs, and create a bigger government.

Earlier the majority leader was on the floor and he was speaking in an amusing if not illuminating manner when he used a football analogy when he talked about the refs on the field. Under their bill, we will end up with a stadium with only refs on the field, maybe highly paid and highly charged with authority, bureaucrats and refs, but no players. There will be no players in the game any more. And, quite frankly, the American public will not be able to pay the ticket to admission to the stadium under their legislation.

I also found it somewhat amusing that the only example of deregulation that the majority leader could think to was a piece of legislation that he actually voted for. And in fact that of course was not deregulation at all.

So we have presented now a Republican substitute, a Republican substitute that listens to the American people, that provides the appropriate level of regulation. The Republican substitute will actually end taxpayer-funded bailouts. The Republican substitute will actually do so by making sure the responsible parties pay. The Republican substitute will end job-destroying legislation and practices and instead create a facility that will expand liquidity and credit in the marketplace so that we can create new and expansive number of jobs in this country. The Republican substitute will end the practice of growing and expanding the government as we have seen time and time again. Instead, the Republican substitute will make sure that we have a government that lives within its means. I stand here in support of the Republican substitute.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the work of VFW Post 8946 in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey for their selfless and inspiring deeds towards their fellow citizens. For the past few years this group of extraordinary individuals has been traveling to the Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington DC as well as the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. During their trips the members of the Post have spent time with wounded veterans and their families. They have brought items such as clothing, CD players, electric shavers and even a large TV for the Recreation Room.

After one of their more recent visits to Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, William Huston, a member of the Post, told a local reporter that, ``these young men have a remarkable attitude, we cannot properly express the admiration we have for them.'' It is this sense of genuine commitment towards helping those who have given so much to our nation that makes this Post unique in many ways.

As I reflect on the deeds they have done I cannot help but be reminded of the enduring words from President Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address. Lincoln challenged his fellow Americans to ``care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.'' The men of this Post are a living testament to these words.

I want to once again thank this group of exceptional men for their service towards their fellow citizens. I am proud to represent such a fine group of people in the United States House of Representatives and I would like to recognize individually: William Huston, Gerard DeCicco, Joseph M. Poggi, Faust Faustini, Ray Johns, Peter Mauro, James Horris, Edward Powers, Sergei Leoniuk, Edward Halvey, George Kritzler, Fredrick Singer, and Robery Schmitt.

I thank the Chair. How much time do we have?

I'll yield myself 2 minutes.

The American public has stated, and I said so on the floor the other night, that it's looking for Congress to do three things: first, make sure that we have no more bailouts; secondly, make sure that whatever legislation we do does not create anymore impediments

to job creation; and thirdly, let's make sure that we don't lead to a bigger, more expensive, more expansive government.

Well, we have seen over the past several days now that the legislation before us would do the wrong thing on each point. It'll create more bailouts. It will hurt job creation. And it will create larger government. Now, to the underlying portion of this bill here dealing with credit rating agencies, we all know that it was bipartisan action taken by this Congress back in 2006 when we passed the bipartisan Credit Rating Agency Reform Act. And what did that do? That formalized the registration process of credit rating agencies to become nationally recognized statistical rating organizations.

What are we about to do here? Throw that out the window before it's fully implemented, before we fully have had the opportunity to see it roll out and be played out as Congress intended it to in a bipartisan manner. We're about to throw that out. To what end?

Well, as the gentleman from Texas just pointed out, to the end that you will allow for less competition in the CRAs, credit rating agencies, with, furthermore, unintended consequences that will be detrimental to the market and investors. What does that mean to people back at home? That means that it will be harder for them to make the evaluations that are necessary for the industry. That means it will be harder for credit to be obtained in the marketplaces, and what that means for businesses, of course, harder for them to get the credit they need to expand and create jobs.

This amendment here is necessary to counter all the aspects of this bill so that we can work hard to make sure that we create jobs in this country, make sure that businesses that need credit can get the credit they need, make sure that businesses that need to be able and want to expand are able to expand.

This amendment is a positive amendment. I support this amendment.

I reserve my time.

I still reserve.

I believe that it's our right to close. It's our amendment.

Then I will yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) my remaining time.

I claim the time in opposition.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Chair, if there is anything that the last few months have taught us, it is the American people telling us that we don't need more government to overreach in big government solutions when targeted reforms are more appropriate and effective.

When thinking about how to draft a legislative response to the recent financial crisis in regards to this issue of derivatives, we must ask ourselves one seminal question: What are we actually trying to resolve here. The vast majority of the OTC derivative marketplace had absolutely nothing to do with the crisis. It provides critically important risk management tools for virtually all large companies and many small- and medium-sized companies as well.

When you think about the AIG situation, even the problem there with the derivatives had much more to do with the extremely bad bets on the housing market along with failed prudential regulators who were supposed to be overseeing them than they had anything specifically to do with the derivatives themselves.

So quite honestly, Madam Chair, we don't think it's appropriate to set up a truly cumbersome and Byzantine dual regulatory regime that would require the CFTC and the SEC, two entities that have not shown the ability to cooperate in the past, that they have two very different missions and reasons for being to approach very different marketplaces and derivatives and to do so now in the same manner.

The Democrats' underlying bill sets these two entities up to perform as prudential regulators, setting capital requirements, margins, and other prudential requirements when they were never envisioned to play this role. When you think about this, also, the SEC has failed miserably as a prudential regulator when it tried to do the consolidated regulator for investment banks.

The proposal contains in the underlying bill an overly broad definition, new capital and margin requirements and broad authority for regulators to determine which transactions are standardized and subject to mandatory clearing and exchange trading.

These are unnecessary government burdens that could impair the usefulness of derivatives as an innovative risk management tool, thereby increasing the exposure to the marketplace and the participants in them, which all gets to the last point.

I will yield myself 15 more seconds to make the final point.

All of these points in the underlying bill will lead to one thing: a loss of credit and therefore a loss of jobs in America today and in the future as well. The American people have spoken loud and strong: Do not pass any legislation that is going to create hardships for the creation of jobs in this country, and this underlying legislation with its language on derivatives would do just that.

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

I yield myself 3 minutes.

I appreciate the underlying amendment that we're discussing here right now. Let me just point out that the Republicans have submitted a substitute to address this overall issue. Republicans, however, have done so in a targeted approach addressing actual problems, and it's really the more sensible approach to the whole derivative reform issue.

The centerpiece of the Republican alternative is something also found in the chairman's bill, which is a trade repository where all OTC trades would be required to be reported to. The repository then will provide valuable transparency, something we are all trying to achieve, to the entire OTC marketplace and will give the regulators the ability to analyze the appropriate data for their purposes as well as provide aggregated data to the broader marketplace.

We don't set up a Byzantine regulatory regime over the many market participants. While we don't do that because we don't preassume, without any relevant supporting data, that these entities needed to be micromanaged in this manner, we do require that the regulators review the data and regularly report back to Congress if an entity who is not already regulated by a prudential regulator, whether they should be more heavily regulated due to its size or its scope or its activities in the OTC marketplace.

So the Republican substitute does not have broad requirements for mandatory clearing, but it does codify the commitments that the private sector has already made. And they have done so working responsibly and cooperatively with the appropriate regulators, and they do so to engage in an ever more and greater amounts of central clearing now and into the future as well.

But when you think about it, these changes all take time. And they need to be done in a responsible manner. If you were going to force central clearing through some sort of central counterparties and have adequate counterparties for risk they are unfamiliar with, it could exacerbate the systemic risk.

So central clearing should be opened up over time to as many participants as possible, again, in a responsible manner so as not to do more harm than good, which is what we are all trying to achieve at the end of the day with the amendments and otherwise.

We also require margin requirements between dealers and major market participants, and that would address a major issue with the AIG-related problems that I discussed earlier.

In regards to the capital requirements, prudential regulators--look at them for a moment. Prudential regulators are really required by our substitute to take the swap activities of supervised entities into account when setting capital requirements for those entities. Let me step back for a minute and say that again.

What you're basically saying here in the AIG situation is what we should have had occur there is prudential regulators should have been looking at those swap requirements when they set the capital requirements over at AIG or other like situations. But again, it is not appropriate to set these bank-like cap requirements on nonfinancial entities, so our Republican substitute would not do so.

Finally, we generally agree with the overall chairman's regard to segregating----

I yield myself 30 additional seconds.

Finally, we agree with the chairman in regards to segregating margin for OTC swaps, although we exempt various margining for segregation requirements based on input from both the buy and the sell side.

Margins should be treated as such, especially if a dealer's counterparty wishes it to be so, and should not be commingled with the dealer's funds. Many of the problems associated with the Lehman bankruptcy, I am told and I understand, are related to this very issue. And so requiring margin segregation, we believe, would be an appropriate response to that issue and that problem and would solve it for the future.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I rise once again to point out that the underlying legislation was misdirected by setting up a Byzantine process and addressed a problem that really was not the underlying cause of the financial situation we have today.

I will also point out before I yield to the ranking member that the amendment that's before us today, it does one thing that's better than the underlying bill, which is to say that there should not be a margin requirement on end users, which is better in the sense that they will not have to post those, which will maybe address the issue of overall job creation in the future.

But I will close on this point: The underlying bill is still problematical to the larger issue of saying that if you create a system like this and address a problem of the OTC market in such a Byzantine manner and create additional burdens on it than are unnecessary, we will create fewer jobs in the future.

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the ranking member.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the work of the chairman with regard to clarifying some of the definitions here. I think this goes to the overall issue of the complexity of the issues that are before the House tonight on this matter and on the broader matter of the derivative regulations that we are discussing with the previous amendment and this amendment as well. It goes to the point that I raised just a moment ago in my previous remarks, that if we are going to try to answer to the American public to the three most important questions that they are asking of Congress--no more bailouts, no more legislation that destroys jobs, and no more expansive, larger and spending government--we have to look to what we're doing in the derivative area as well.

In the derivative area that we see in the underlying legislation, what we have done is create a Byzantine piece of regulation combining the two, working with two entities that have never worked together in the past before, setting in the underlying legislation margin requirements that potentially end users--although I recognize the previous amendment just addressed that point--margin requirements on them which basically, at the end of the day, if we think about it in basically simple terms, means it will be more costly in this country to do business. It will be more difficult for entities to hedge their risk. And if businesses can't hedge their risk, the other fundamental purpose of this legislation that we hear from the other side to end the idea of systemic risk will be thwarted as well.

So think about that. We will be thwarting one of the basic functions that they say is the underlying legislation to end systemic risk because we cause hardship on companies to hedge their risk on the one end, and not addressing one of the major problems this country is faced with today, high unemployment. We must do a better job than that.

As I stated before, Republicans have offered a better solution to all of those issues. We have offered a solution with regard to the bailouts, to end taxpayer-funded bailouts. We have offered a solution to end the prospects of less jobs in this country. And we offered a solution respectively to the whole derivative market, as I set forth before. The centerpiece of that solution is something that was actually found in the chairman's bill, and that was the repository idea. We can get all the transparency that we need right now through a trade repository where the OTC trades are reported. We can get the accountability and the transparency that the American public looks for as well through the initiatives that are in the Republican substitute. But we can do so in a manner, therefore, that will not impose additional risk or cumbersomeness or a Byzantine structure, and therefore not affect the hedging abilities or the cost of doing business of companies in this country. We can do so in a manner that will not hurt the creation of jobs.

When you think about it, we will have probably discussed three different areas, three different titles of this bill that actually will be hurting jobs. What are they? We haven't talked about the first one too much, CFPA, the Consumer Financial Products Agency. It has already been documented that that will cost literally a million jobs. The wind- down authority, we have already talked about that previously, that will also cost jobs. And here, if you do not handle the derivative situation correctly, that potentially can cause job loss in this country as well. We suggest that the Republican substitute should be considered in this area as in other areas as well.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time and commend the gentleman for his work on the underlying amendment that we have here before us today.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes, the balance of my time.

The American public, quite honestly, if they watch what goes on tonight and have watched in the days before and after, really are not looking for anyone to be pointing fingers of blame at this administration or at the last administration. This should not be a partisan issue. The other side always wants to point back several years to the Bush administration.

We could point back that it was the Democrat majority for 2007, 2008 and now 2009 that has been running this House and that, during that time, we have seen the catastrophe in the financial markets, and that it was during their tenure that we saw the catastrophe of unemployment soaring through the roof. Yet pointing fingers at the Democrats and at the fact that they have done the job that they have done and that we have seen the results of their legislation over the last 3 years will not solve the problem.

What we need to do, however, is pass legislation that will end the pattern of elimination of jobs, that will end the pattern of the bailout mentality, that will end the pattern of expansive government. That's why we come here tonight to offer Republican solutions to a lot of these things, and it's why we ask the majority party to consider some of those proposals as we go forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise and seek to claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).

At this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

I presume I am to close?

I thank the Chair.

The gentleman from Massachusetts says the government is not interposing or getting involved here. Of course they are, and that's what the whole fundamental purpose of the underlying bill is, is to set up this whole Byzantine arrangement of new regulations specifically in this area. Yes, I have read the amendment; and, yes, I recall it coming through committee and the problems that were raised there. When you centralize risk and clearing entities, as made mandatory by the underlying bill, it's important that we ensure that there is some independence in the clearinghouses from the dealers who play such a large role, like he says. But that's why in committee I offered an amendment that would have required that the majority of the directors of the derivatives of the clearing organization must not be associated with swap dealers. This goes much further than what's already on the books right now.

The SEC has a current policy of limiting a position of 20 percent ownership of a single broker dealer in an existing exchange. This amendment goes way farther than that, saying that that 20 percent applies in the aggregate. Yes, I read the amendment.

You have to remember that dealers are among the most likely sources of investment capital to establish these new clearinghouses. If you are going to come up tonight now with a really overly restrictive limit on ownership, as we have in this amendment, you are going to have potentially some negative consequences. Some of those will be in competition.

At the end of the day, what will you have? The amendment could very well exacerbate risk by forcing more derivative transactions that are out there, and who knows how many will be out there after this legislation passes, to fewer and to fewer and to fewer clearinghouses, basically concentrating risk and doing the opposite of what the American public wants, to avoid risk burdens and additional bailouts.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.

I yield myself 1 minute.

This probably is the most critical amendment that we will consider today that addresses the derivative portion of the legislation to the chairman's question of whether we should say ``yes'' or ``no'' to the claim for more power to these entities.

I would say we should tell them ``no,'' and the reason is because neither the administration nor the majority nor the chairman has provided any substantial evidence whatsoever of any specific OTC derivatives, how they cause a financial crisis.

Derivatives are something that the companies use to try to hedge the risk. Clearly, we must make sure there's transparency and accountability--and I have already spoken about that--and we can do so in a way, however, that will not hamper their ability to control costs, not to manage risks, compete in the global marketplace. This would all hurt that.

And when you talk about the end users in this and what they're doing, remember it was the end users, large and small, the public and private American businesses, they, they were the victims, not the cause, of the financial crisis.

Derivative dealers and their customers, the end users, they're in the best position to determine what are the appropriate margin requirements, not giving more authority to the SEC or the CFTC or any other financial regulators.

I reserve my time.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who also distrusts regulations as we have seen and the SEC and their handling of the SEC situation and the OTS and the regulation of the AIG situation, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I would like to begin by commending my colleague from South Jersey, Congressman John Adler, for his hard work on this very important issue. As all of our colleagues know in New Jersey and around the country, our Nation is in tough economic times right now and these tough times are compounded if you are a small business. And the last thing we need to do is put more burdens on them by imposing costly regulations.

I think we all agree that our Nation's small businesses are not the cause of our current financial situation, but they are the ones who are going to get us out of it. The language in the bill that would permanently exempt small businesses with a market capitalization of $75 million or less from section 404(b) of Sarbanes-Oxley was added during committee consideration by myself and Mr. Adler and was adopted by a broad bipartisan vote, with the backing of the White House as well.

Unlike some would like to have you believe, this exemption does not exempt institutions from all auditing requirements. As the Independent Community Bankers Association notes in a

letter on this matter, they say, ``The regulatory burden will be in addition to their other annual auditing fees, their regular safety and soundness and compliance examinations conducted by the banking agencies, and complying with other numerous Federal and State banking laws and regulations. It will also be in addition to complying with Sarbanes-Oxley section 404(a) which requires management to render an opinion concerning an issuer's internal controls.''

Basically all that means is there is a plethora of other regulations providing for transparency for these companies.

Let me give you a quick example about one company in my district, and that is Dewey Electronics. They are located in Oakland, New Jersey, a small company, 35 employees, capitalized $3.6 million, hardly a company that's going to cause panic in this country if they fail. The CEO, the CFO and other management, they are all located in the same hallway, in the same building. There is constant communication between all the board of directors. They are a perfect example of a small business in which the government should not force new and now highly expensive regulatory requirements in order to have them check off some boxes on some form.

Think about it. The hundreds of thousands of dollars that it will cost them to comply with section 404(b) would be much better spent in developing new and more efficient generators, which is what the company does to support our troops overseas to be used on the battlefield or to be used to hire new employees, which is what we talked about a number of times before on this floor, to make sure that we can provide more jobs as we see the joblessness rate rise.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and colleague from South Jersey, Congressman Adler.

We should be closing. Are there speakers on the other side?

I will reserve the balance of my time.

I am going to close, yes.

And now, I shall yield my remaining 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and colleague from the State of Texas.

Madam Chair, I would enter into the Record at this time just the letters of support of the Adler-Garrett amendment from the New York Stock Exchange Euronext, Property Casualty Insurers, ICBA, Biotechnology, and the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs.

NYSE Euronext,

December 8, 2009.

Hon. John Adler,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Scott Garrett,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives Adler and Garrett: NYSE Euronext

supports your provision in the Investor Protection Act that

would permanently exempt smaller public companies, with a

market capitalization of less than $75 million, from Section

404(b) of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.

We urge Congress to retain this provision in H.R. 4173, The

Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009.

This provision will help promote the ability of smaller

companies to compete and create jobs without sacrificing the

important benefits of strong auditor oversight and robust

financial reporting requirements. The SEC's current exemption

for companies with less than $75 million in market value

represents a measured approach to balancing investor

protection and SME competitiveness, as these companies

continue to be audited and subject to SEC rules regarding

financial reporting and disclosure requirements.

NYSE Euronext looks forward to continuing to work with the

Congress to strengthen the growth, competitiveness and job-

creation of U.S. public companies.

Sincerely,

Clarke D. Camper,

Senior Vice President, Head of

Government Affairs and Public Advocacy.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman.

What the gentleman from California is trying to do is trying to help investors and help the markets by providing this amendment. The SEC is currently examining this whole issue in studying this, and we should basically allow the SEC to continue with its evaluation and then come back to address the issue. Because what we're dealing with here is the fact that there's an exemption, and eliminating that exemption would be punishing not the CRAs, but punishing investors.

What it will do is create an environment that will lead to more volatile and less accurate ratings. Something that none of us should be supporting.

Right now there is an exemption for the NRSROs if they have the ratings included in the registration statements filed under the Act. This removes that. What would be the end consequence of that if this were to go through and this amendment were not to pass?

Well, you would increase dramatically the time and cost involved with raising capital and thus make it more difficult for its issuers to do so. Moreover, some SROs may refuse to consent entirely, and what would that do? That would mean we would have even less information available to investors as they try to evaluate securities in the registration statement.

At the end of the day without this amendment, this underlying bill will see to it that we have a higher cost of credit, a higher cost to do business and less jobs in the country.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Delay, delay, delay? Ms. Jackson-Lee just made the comment. It's absolutely delay. We've been waiting here for the last 4 hours for your side of the aisle to come to the floor to be able to debate this bill. So Ms. Jackson-Lee, I would ask, through the Chair, who it is on your side that was delay, delay, delay, and I would be glad to bring that person to the floor to ask, Why are you delaying trying to reform the system in this country?

But I rushed to the floor because I was just doing a telephone town hall and people were watching what is going on on the floor right now, and they said, Congressman, you must go down to the floor to end the bailouts, end this piece of legislation that will cut jobs in this country, and end this piece of legislation that will expand the size of government.

Now, I understand the reason the gentleman from Colorado says that we are mistaken with regard to whether or not there are bailouts in the bill. This bill is larger than the health care bill. It's larger than the cap-and-trade bill. You remember the bill that no one read before they came here or the health care bill that no one read before they came here? Maybe the reason why the gentleman from Colorado is perhaps mistaken on this point is because, quite candidly, enough people on your side of the aisle haven't read the bill. And if you did, you would see that there are bailouts and that the taxpayer is ultimately on the hook to the tune of upwards of $150 billion.

How does that work? Well, we set up this system where, in essence, we're going to say we're going to set up a slush fund that eventually will tax businesses that are causing cuts in jobs across this country, but until we get

that up and running, where are we going to get that money? Well, we're going to get it by essentially allowing the U.S. Treasury to go to the American public and ask them once again, once again, to bail out the mistakes on Wall Street.

Well, we say enough to the bailouts. Enough of putting the taxpayer on the hook for the bailouts. Enough for all the mistakes, both by Wall Street and government. And enough to these bailouts passed in legislation that this administration has passed and that the chairman in this committee has ushered through in the past. Whether it's the past administration or this administration, that side of the aisle has been at the forefront of having the American taxpayer bailing out Wall Street and the government as well.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

The language of the bill says that----

The language of the bill gives the authority to set up a bailout----

Page 3 of the Judiciary Committee's self- executing amendment.

It says, on page 291, after line 4, Insert the following new subsections: Conversion to Bankruptcy (1) Conversion: The corporation may at any time, with the approval of the Secretary-- meaning the Treasury Secretary--and after consulting with the council, convert the receivership of a covered financial company to a proceeding under chapter 7 or chapter 11 of title 11, United States Code, by filing a petition against the covered financial company under section 303(m) of such title. The corporation may serve as the trustee for the covered financial company.

Basically, what you have established here is a political decision by the Treasury Secretary to take an institution that they decide they are going to put into receivership--which you said before would be the end game--and allow them to convert back into 7 or 11 bankruptcy.

So your statement before--and this goes to my opening comment, which you responded to, why are we so concerned with such a large bill? The reason we are so concerned with such a large bill is because obviously the Chair and Members of your side of the

aisle have not read the entire bill. The reason we presented a much smaller bill was because obviously you have not read our bill either. I know our opening comment----

You yielded it to me, so I am responding.

You yielded me 2 minutes, I believe.

I'm sorry, I thought you wanted a response.

Hopefully I answered the gentleman's question.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

Madam Chair, can you advise the time remaining on both sides.

I now yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who is leading the fight against this bill, which perpetuates taxpayer- funded bailouts and the loss of millions of jobs, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Madam Chair, I now yield 3 minutes to another leader in the fight against this bill which perpetuates the idea of continued taxpayer-funded bailouts, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) who recognizes that Glass-Steagall had absolutely nothing to do with the bailout of Bear Sterns and Lehman and the S and L crisis, and the gentleman who also recognizes that the American public is tired of the bailout mentality which would be sustained by this bill.

May I inquire of the Chair the amount of time remaining on both sides?

Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Madam Chairman, I now yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who has been probably one of the most outspoken leaders in our committee to try to end the continuation of taxpayer-funded bailouts.

I will yield the gentleman another 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

You know, the American public has spoken. They are opposed to more taxpayer-funded bailouts, they are opposed to more loss of jobs in this country, and they are opposed to bigger and larger and more expensive government. The American public has spoken. Obviously, the majority has failed to listen to them, because we've come to the floor tonight with a major 1,300-page piece of legislation which goes in the exact opposite direction that the American public has asked for.

The bill before us has in it taxpayer-funded bailouts. The bill before us has in it the loss of additional millions of jobs, and of course, with the 1,300 pages that we see here before us, the bill before us has in it an expansive growth of the Federal Government and cost that we have never seen the likes of which during our 200-plus history.

You know, at the beginning of this 2- or 3-hour debate that we've had here on the floor, the chairman of the committee began his remarks by saying that we will have--we will be hearing fantasy tonight, and then he proceeded to give us some of that fantasy, for much of what we've heard from the other side of the aisle is fantasy, whether it's describing their legislation that we're about to vote on later tomorrow or whether describing legislation that we have offered as an alternative to it.

You know, I've heard the chairman say there is nothing in this bill, in the Republican's alternative, dealing with 13(3) and the Federal Reserve powers. I guess the chairman has never taken a look at the Republican substitute.

I will.

I remember in committee that we had similarity, but I remember, because I wrote it down, that there was nothing in our bill with regard to this.

I thought I heard it from you, just as I thought I heard it from you saying that there was nothing in our bill with regard to executive compensation, and I know that we do have language in our bill which also was discussed in committee with regard to executive compensation. So at least in that area I know I heard this from the chairman, and it is in our bill. I thought I heard the chairman say that there's nothing in here with regard to Federal powers.

Regardless, if it's just one issue or two, I would just ask the chairman to refer back to my earlier comments, the reason we're concerned with the extensive nature of the largeness of the bill is because when it gets so large, 1,300 pages, your side of the aisle is not familiar with what's in your bill, and even our bill, which pales in comparison by size, you fail to know exactly what's in ours as well.

The American public has spoken out and says they're opposed to more taxpayer-funded bailouts. This was one point where we were in discussion just a moment ago, an hour ago, where I did have to point out to the chairman that in your bill, in the Judiciary Committee self- executing amendment, there is language in there which basically perpetuates what has occurred already in this year that the American people are opposed to is taxpayer-funded bailouts.

Let me explain it very quickly.

What happens is the Federal Government is able to set up a taxing mechanism on businesses in this country to the tune of $150 or $200 billion, and until we establish that, you can--the Treasury Secretary can draw on the taxpayer dollar to help fund this mechanism. And even after that is set up, under this provision on page 3, the corporation may, as I said before, convert what is called a receivership--which basically would be putting the business out of business, which is something that the chairman says would occur--but then would allow it to proceed to a chapter 7 or a chapter 11 bankruptcy, and, of course, that basically means that the business is reorganized.

So what's occurring here is we are allowing the Treasury Secretary, a political appointee, to make the decision, the life-and-death decisions of businesses of this country.

And they will say that this company is going to survive, and this company is not going to survive, and this company over here is going to survive on the backs of American taxpayers. This company is going to survive even though it made bad decisions, risky decisions, but for whatever political purposes or otherwise, the Treasury Secretary can sign off and say, take taxpayer dollars, funnel it into that company for a while under the corporations act, under the bridge loans and bridge proposals and what have you, and then under section B on page 3 convert it back into a reorganization and allow it to flourish once again with the blessing of the Treasury Secretary and of this administration and of the American taxpayer as well.

So the bill does have what the American taxpayer does not want to have, which is a continuation of bailouts at their expense.

What else does the bill have that the American public is asking not to have? And that is the loss of jobs. I remember being on this floor, and I do remember this conversation very well standing right over there when the majority leader was standing over here at the beginning of the year, and he was predicting, he was promising that if we only passed the $700 billion or $800 billion stimulus package, as the gentleman from Texas said earlier, that we would see the results immediately, not by the summer, not by the end of the year, not by next year, but we would see immediate job growth in this country. We would never see 8 or 8\1/2\ percent unemployment, and we would see the results immediately.

Well, that tune changed when unemployment went up to 8, then 8\1/2\ percent, then 9, then 9\1/2\, then 10, then 10.2 percent. Then, all of a sudden, their tune changed to say, well, you won't see it immediately. We will see it some time next year. And now, of course,

we're coming to the floor with the majority leader saying that we will see job growth some time next year, but we just need another stimulus package. However many dollars from the American taxpayer pockets that's going to cost, I'm not sure.

Thank you. Actually, you're right. We saw two things immediately. We saw the loss of 3\1/2\ million jobs during that period of time, and, of course, we saw more borrowing from the American taxpayer and also actually from overseas, China and elsewhere, to the tune of $700 billion or $800 billion. So those are the predictions, those are the promises there.

What do we see in this bill? What we see in the bill is the creation of a number of entities, a number of pieces in this bill that will result in losses of even greater numbers of jobs. Just like we saw the studies showing that if we ever passed cap-and-trade we will be seeing millions of jobs lost there, just as we saw the documentation coming out with the health care bill saying we would lose millions of jobs because of that. Here too studies have looked at the CFPA and said that provision alone would raise the interest rates for businesses.

That provision alone will raise interest rates between 1.4 or 1.6, but say 1.5 percentage points, that means that businesses and individuals trying to get loans will see their loans go from 6 percent up to 7\1/2\ percent. That will mean less jobs today and in the future. How many jobs? Well, one study points out roughly over 1 million jobs under that provision alone.

Where else will we be losing jobs? We will be losing jobs due to this whole bailout proposal in this bill. If you put a tax on anything, you're meaning that those businesses can't spend the money here when they have to send it over to the government to be stored over here for some other purposes. So if we are going to ask businesses to spend $150 billion, $200 billion on this new bailout tax, well, some studies have looked at that and said that will result in higher costs for those businesses naturally, less ability for them to invest. If they can't invest it in new plants, materials, and employees, they will be putting it over here. The numbers there we are seeing is around some 450,000 less jobs because of that provision.

You're talking between those two provisions alone in the over millions range of jobs not being created or lost because of this legislation.

So I will leave to later on my last point, which is that this bill obviously also creates bigger government, more expansive growth of government, more expansive takeover of the private sector and private individuals' lives as well, their decisionmaking lives, as Ranking Member Bachus said at the very beginning comments, all things the American taxpayer has spoken out against.

The American taxpayer has spoken out against taxpayer-funded bailouts. They said we want less job destruction. We want less big government. This bill gives us taxpayer-funded bailouts. This bill gives us destruction of more jobs. And this bill gives us a bigger government. All things the American public is opposed to. And that's why I come to the floor tonight and oppose this piece of legislation.

I thank the Chair, and I thank the gentleman from Texas. Just to go back to a comment--the gentleman from North Carolina made two comments--what is the solution?

Well, the gentleman from Texas said here is our solution, and I leave a copy here in case he has not had an opportunity to read it. It is by size a lot less than what you have before you.

The gentleman from North Carolina also asked about our studies; and where we say this will hurt jobs because you will be raising credit interest rates by 1.4 or 1.6, I average it out to about 1.5 percent. It translates into X number of jobs, millions of jobs lost. The questions are studies before we implement this.

My question to the gentleman is before we pass this legislation today and implement it and impose this burden onto the American business sector and the American public in general, can you tell me which study you are referring to that will not cause a loss of jobs?

Yes.

Reclaiming my time, and there is the point. We have this 1,300-page bill that I would hazard the great guess that the vast majority of this body here tonight has not ever had the opportunity to, nor the inclination to, nor, in fact, did read.

And now we seem to hear that when it comes to what the impact, the vast impact that this will have on our economy, where is there information as to what they inquired that it would do? It is absent.

I spoke before about the point that this bill goes contrary to the American public's claim that they do not want any more bailouts, and I raised reference to one section of the bill which in perpetuity it allows for the creation of switching from receivership into bankruptcy and makes it basically a political decision. Another provision of the bill on page 408 basically says that the Treasury Secretary has unlimited authority to borrow an unlimited

amount of money from the Federal Treasury, which means from the American taxpayer.

How do we see this? Page 408 of the bill, section 3, ``Borrowing authority when fund assets are less than $150 billion.'' Section (B), ``The corporation may borrow, and the Secretary may lend, any amount of funds that, when added to the amount available in the fund on the date the corporation makes a request to borrow funds, would not exceed $150 billion.''

What does that mean? That means today, as we start this program out, there are zero dollars in the fund. The Treasury Secretary can go to the Treasury, meaning the American taxpayer, and ask for $150 billion from the American public, and they could bail out some company, maybe AIG again, as this past administration helped facilitate. And then after that, there's no money in the fund again, so they go back to Treasury and say, We need another $150 billion, because, under the terms of the bill as written right now, there's no money in the fund and they can borrow up to $150 billion. They ask for another $150 billion. And then a company akin to Lehman or something goes under, or another company over here or the auto companies go under, and they pay it all out the next day. How much is in the fund then? Zero. At which point the Treasury Secretary can go back to the American taxpayer a third time and ask for an additional $150 billion.

When does it end? This bill puts absolutely no limit on it whatsoever. It could be $150 billion. It can be $1 trillion. It could be $10 trillion. It's all in the hands of the political appointee, Secretary Geithner, for him to decide where this money goes and how much it goes to, and it can be a political decision because, as we have seen before, he can prop up favorite companies and allow them then to go into receivership and then allow them to come back out of it after he has asked the American public to spend $10 billion, $100 billion, $1 trillion in order to do so. Where is the limitation in this bill? There is absolutely none.

So when the other side of the aisle looks chagrined when we say the American taxpayer is on the hook for bailouts, they need only to look at their own bill, page 408 or page 3 over here in the Judiciary Committee, to see that is an unlimited drain on the American taxpayer, that this will allow perpetual bailouts that are never ending and will be made by political appointees for their favorite companies that they want to prop up to the end of the Earth. That, I think, is reason one why we should be opposed to this bill.

If there's nothing else in this bill besides those few pages, we should all be voting ``no.'' If there's nothing else in this bill, every American listening to this floor debate tonight should be calling up their Member of Congress and saying, Why are you putting us on the hook to bail out bad businesses and bad business decisions? Why are you putting us on the hook to bail out your political favorite companies that you want to bail out, and why do you want to do so without limitation?

I appreciate the opportunity to join you, and I commend the gentleman for leading tonight and also for those very interesting quotes from the White House with regard to the Web sites that are out there.

I think the American public are asking some very basic questions-- Where is the transparency? Where is the accountability? Where are the jobs?--on all this legislation that's coming through. And when they see this, when they see Web sites that you just pointed out talking about congressional Web sites that don't even exist, when they see about job creation that doesn't even exist.

You probably recall that the majority leader was on this floor back in the early part of this year when he was exclaiming that we had to vote for a seven or $800 billion stimulus bill and you had to vote for it today. Why? Because it would make or create 3 million new jobs, not next year but this year. And, of course, we now know what the facts are. What are the facts? Instead of making or saving 3 million new jobs--and I never did quite get an explanation of what is saving a job--but making or saving 3 million jobs, we, of course, have lost upwards of 3 or 4 million jobs, just the inverse of that, just the opposite of that.

So the people are asking, where is the honesty in that aspect of things? Where is the accountability with the job creation? They're also asking about, and you're talking about all the money that we're spending, the trillion dollars with regard to the health care legislation and the like. Actually, I think the number was a little bit larger than what you were saying as far as the discrepancy with the projections with regard to Medicare which was created back in the mid sixties. They said by 1990, that program would cost around 10 or $11 billion. It actually cost $112 billion, so it was off by a factor of 10.

You were being too generous.

Those numbers are just so mind boggling you can't get your arms around it. But you know what you can get your mind around is something that's happening to everybody right now, and that is, I'm getting phone calls to my office with regard to the swine flu situation that's going across this country, and they're saying, We can't get the swine flu vaccine. This is something that's supposed to be administered by this administration, that they promised would be out there for everybody who needed it, and in my counties, my district, you can't go to a doctor or a county clinic or to a county hospital and get that. But you know who is getting it? People who work at the Federal Reserve in New York, people who work for some of the largest financial institutions in this country. And the people who absolutely need it are not getting it. The people who are in jail down at Guantanamo are getting it as well. I just use that as a real life example of the administration running a program for health care and not getting the job done.

I yield back to the gentleman as the time comes to an end.

Mr. Speaker, the truth has now come out, and the fact is that you can go to jail if you do not buy into the Speaker Pelosi health care bill.

One of the most onerous provisions of the Pelosi health care bill is the so-called ``individual mandate.'' This is a provision that will force every single American to buy into their health care plans whether they want to or not.

Back when Bill Clinton was President back in 1994, the CBO said, ``A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase insurance like this would be an unprecedented form of Federal action.''

And how does the government force this mandate? If you don't buy their insurance plan, they will fine you 2.5 percent of your entire income. And what happens, you may ask, if you don't pay that fine to them? Now we know the answer: You could be sent to jail, literally. Section 201 of the code says that. That's right. The Joint Committee of Taxation has declared that you will be eligible to be fined up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 5 years if you do not comply with this new plan.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It will hurt consumers. It will hurt families. It will hurt everyone else. And it may send Americans to jail.

I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona yielding, and I will be listening on the edge of my seat to hear your written comments momentarily. But I wish to join in with the discussion.

I commend your work. I have been watching for the last 45 minutes your discussion, and I know you have begun to make the shift over in the comparison with regard to No Child Left Behind.

In reality, of course, maybe you have already said this, with the huge burden, intergenerational burden that this bill will create, of course, what we are really talking about is no child will be left a dime.

We are indeed going to be placing a huge debt. This is going to be an intergenerational travesty for the next generation, for our children and their children as well, and that is the interesting thing.

Just yesterday, Thursday, at noon, there were literally tens of thousands of people outside, just outside the steps of this Capitol, people who are interested in freedom and liberty coming down here to have their voice heard. That despite the fact, I might add, I know there were some reports in the paper from Members of the other side of the aisle, the Democrat side of the aisle, that said, basically paraphrasing, I am not sure why people are coming to Washington and why people are calling, because they have made up their mind already, which is also a travesty.

Right. I think you are being overly generous to the other side of the aisle when you said the bill has been out there 8 days. In reality, of course, as we sit here or stand here on the floor of the Chamber of the House of Representatives, the People's House, upstairs right now is the Rules Committee still debating, or not even debating, just listening to the Republicans make their arguments against the bill.

The final bill, as you are well aware, has not been created. The final bill, as you are well aware, has not been put to text. The final bill has not been presented to the American public, which is really strange when you think about it. Because back on September 24th, Speaker Pelosi said to the media and to the American public that she would give the American public 72 hours to be able to read the final version of the bill before it came to a vote.

Cynical, or maybe overly generous to the other side of the aisle, that the majority and Speaker Pelosi would be so kind to allow the American public even that much time, when she specifically made the promise of 72 hours. Seventy-two hours, what is that? That is 3 days. And even at that, 3 days is a short period of time, I think we all would agree, to read 2,000 pages and get through it.

Remember back just several months ago, when was it that we had the cap-and-trade bill on this floor. That was the end of July, I believe, or August.

When they added the 300 or 400 pages to the bill, and you had Members on the other side of the aisle say, well, they had read the bill. There again, you have to remember the somewhat disingenuous statements, because there again, looking at a 1,000 page bill, and you indicated it was 3 o'clock at night, and the Rules Committee was doing what they are doing right now, and then slipping the bill basically in the dead of night to us, 300-some odd pages, and then having us vote on that bill, when you know that no one had actually read and understood the bill.

Just like that 1,000 page bill before, now we are looking at a 1,990 page bill. Even if you are one of those speed readers that can actually get through 1,990 pages, you know you will not understand the bill. And I will close on this and yield back, that that 2,000 pages also cross- references to a whole series of other pieces of standing legislation you have to understand as well.

So no one who is about to vote on this bill tomorrow, if we do vote on it tomorrow, will have read and understood the bill, and that is a travesty to the American public.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa for leading off with this discussion this evening with regard to the legislation that is going to be coming down the road very quickly. How quickly we do don't know, but obviously more quickly than Speaker Pelosi promised.

Before you got here, on September 4, Madam Speaker said at that time she would allow Members of this body, Republicans and Democrats alike, and she also promised the American public they would have 72 hours in order to look over the bill, read the bill, and understand the bill. She made that promise.

Now, as you point out as we speak here on Friday evening, almost 11 in the evening, we still don't know what the final bill is. That is somewhat ironic because a number of Members on the other side of the aisle, 190 or so, have already been out in the press saying that they will be supporting the bill when it comes up.

I have to ask, How are you saying you will be voting when the final version of the bill hasn't been printed yet, when you don't know what the amendments are or what the text is? But there are 190 who have said they will be voting ``yes'' on the bill at the first opportunity.

Speaker Pelosi said she would give us 72 hours for Members and the American public to look at it, but she has gone back on that promise. She said she didn't really mean with that period of time, so at 11 tonight or 1 in the morning, we may then see the final version of the bill out of the Rules Committee, whenever they decide to do it, in the dead of night, perhaps. And then the bill will come up as soon as they want it to. So, so much for that promise.

The other point, there is a much larger issue, and I think this issue was somewhat addressed at the rally yesterday on the steps of Capitol at noon Thursday, and that is the constitutional issue here. We discussed this a little, and other Members have come here with their Constitution, and it reminds Members of Congress and the public that we live under the rule of law in this country and the Constitution, and we can't go outside of those parameters. And the Constitution says there are certain rights and responsibilities and powers that the Federal Government has, and the 9th and 10th Amendment tells, the 10 Amendment specifically, all rights not specifically delegated to the States are retained by the States and the people respectively.

So you have to ask, How is it that this body believes, the Democratic majority and President Obama believes that we can impose a personal mandate on the American public? How can they begin under our Constitution to start telling people that they actually have to buy a certain product by private industry or through the public option, basically through the government, whether they like it or not?

I will just digress on that point for a moment. If you don't like it, if you don't purchase an insurance policy that the government tells you you have to, you will be fined. You will be fined upwards of 2\1/2\ percent of your income. The legislation also says if you do not pay that fine for not buying that insurance, then what will happen? Well, of course, section 7201 of the code says you can be fined an additional $250,000, a quarter of a million dollars, and you can be sent to jail for 5 years.

I would almost presume so. Think about it. Who is that language targeted for? Is it targeted for the Bill Gates of the world who probably can buy any sort of Cadillac insurance that they want? Or the people on Wall Street who have the expensive Cadillac coverage because their employers provide it for them? No, of course not.

Is that aimed at the poor, nonworking American who can't afford insurance because they are disabled or whatever? No, because those people are protected currently under U.S. law, under Medicaid, and they get health care insurance through Medicaid.

So who is that language in the bill really targeting? That is basically the middle class, those people who are struggling right now, with around 10 percent unemployment we're looking at in this country. Actually, it's 10.2 percent, I think, is the last number, looking at 10.2 percent. Those people are struggling and they're saying, I'm paying all my other bills--my mortgage, my credit cards, my kids' college education, and right now I have to make the decision that I'm not going to be able to afford to buy insurance right now. Guess what? Too bad. Under their bill, you are going to be fined for not buying that insurance policy. And if you don't pay that fine, you could be subject to punishment.

One last point on this, if I may, and then I will yield back to the gentleman. The other person, the other group that this is targeted at is the young. Before you came to the floor, the previous gentlemen were talking about how this relates to No Child Left Behind and that sort of thing and how the Federal Government is intruding in our lives in so many other areas, and how No Child Left Behind just didn't work at all, that's why I didn't support it.

And I coined the phrase--or maybe somebody else coined it before me-- that actually this health care legislation is ``No Child is Left a Dime.'' And the reason that no child is left a dime is because this is a $1.2 trillion expenditure, and where is that $1 trillion coming from? Well, it's really not coming from you and I because we're already looking at, what is it, around $1.6 trillion, $1.7 trillion that we're in deficit right now? In other words, we don't have the money to pay for this bill. So who's going to pay for this bill? Your kids, my kids, America's kids, our grandkids.

So the benefits that are going to be paid to people today, you and me and the other people who are listening tonight here in the gallery and elsewhere, the people that are going to enjoy the benefits of this legislation today, such as they are, are going to be paid for by future generations. So there may be a lot of people who consider they're supporters of Obama, young people that in the past campaign said he's going to do great things for us. What is he really doing for the young people of today? Putting a tremendous burden on them as far as what they're going to have to pay for the people who are living today.

I will give you one example of that. There is something in the legislation called the ``class provision'' or the ``class act.'' What that basically is--yes, the class act, treatment of class act as long- term care insurance. What that basically is is trying to set up a program--good idea in concept--of trying to get people to have long- term care insurance. This is one of those budgetary gimmicks that's in the bill that makes it look as though we're actually saving money today. It makes it look as though the budget deficit is going down so they can say, hey, we're actually saving money. What are you talking about, Republicans? We're actually helping the budget deficit. Well, it's really a budgetary trick, and I can explain it in 30 seconds.

What that does is this: it starts collecting taxes today basically on people who are working, what have you. So young people today will be paying taxes today, and over the next 10 years those young folks will be paying in, what, $72 billion, a huge amount of money. But of course young people today will not be getting any advantage of that money. As a matter of fact, that money won't be going out the door to any large extent over the next 10 years because young people won't be needing long-term care coverage or insurance.

So basically you're putting in the bank all that money for the next 10 years. That makes the budget deficit look better, but in reality it's young people paying for benefits for people today. And their benefits--I'm not sure who's going to be around to pay for them and all of their needs and what have you. So it's a budgetary gimmick to make it look as though things are better than they really are to bring down the deficit. At the end of the day, after those 10 years, costs explode again and the next generation, our kids and grandkids, will be the ones who are not left a dime because it will all be right here in Washington paying for these benefits.

And with that--I see you have a chart to perhaps explain all of this to

us--I yield back to the gentleman from Iowa.

You raise a fascinating point, and I posit two questions to you.

If the Congress were to pass this bill, we know what some of the ramifications would be. It's going to be raising premiums. That is according to the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office. It's going to reduce health choices. It's going to cause delays and denials of care. Here is the one where I'll put a question to you:

$500 billion in Medicare cuts. Why would it be in the best interest of senior citizens, which I presume are who AARP would supposedly be looking out for--why would they suggest that they would be looking out for seniors when they're going to be cutting benefits to seniors for $500 billion?

That's not my number that I came up with. That is language right out of the bill, and it can be verified with the CBO.

So it's counterintuitive that any organization would be doing something against their measures unless--and I just came in at the point when you were saying this--an organization is, maybe, making more money out of the deal for themselves than for the people whom they represent.

I'll yield.

You raise another interesting point. Again, we have to start from the premise with what is in the bill right now, what the CBO has told us and what the bill will do, if they do pass it tomorrow or Monday, what it will do is raise our premiums for insurance, it will reduce our health choices, it will delay or deny care, it will take away half a trillion dollars from our seniors in Medicare, and it will raise taxes by $729 billion.

We know those are the facts. That will happen if this bill passes. But you were saying with regard to the delegates, the doctors out there, the real doctors that you and I have are fighting back and saying that they may take back the endorsement from the AMA. But it may be too late; which raises this question, then: What is the rush? What is the rush to judgment? Why are we doing this on a Saturday or maybe a Sunday? We have only ever voted on a weekend when it's an emergency situation, like for a war resolution or things dealing with the military or what have you.

Is there any reason why this bill could not lay over for a week while the Members go back to their districts for Veterans Day and meet with veterans, meet with seniors, meet with doctors, meet with the other real folks? I cannot think of one reason why Speaker Pelosi would not allow us.

I would ask, I am sure she is up at this hour--and we have a few minutes left--I would appreciate it if Speaker Pelosi could come down here right now and explain to us why we can't have a week when the veterans and everybody else gets to comment on this.

Just one last point, because I know the time is up here, is that going to the point of rushing through this, we are not in control. We are in the minority party. We cannot set the agenda. This bill could come up in an hour from now, or this bill could come up Saturday morning or Saturday afternoon.

We hope and wish the leadership on the other side, Speaker Pelosi, would give us the time they promised, at least 72 hours. We have the whole week to do so.

But there is still an opportunity, however, for the American public to come back here tomorrow at 1 o'clock and have their voice heard on the green here by the Capitol.

With that, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the Democrats' plans to ``reform'' our health care system.

You know, many promises have been made by the other side of the aisle about what these reforms would actually do, but now we actually have a definitive analysis, performed by the chief government actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to look at the consequences of these reforms. Well, Mr. Speaker, the diagnosis is not that good.

Both the President and his economic advisors have said that whatever bill the President signs he wants to make sure that he bends the cost curve. Well, how does the Democrat health care stack up to that pledge?

According to that chief actuary whom I just mentioned, total spending on health care would actually increase by $750 billion more than if we did nothing at all. That's right. The Democrats' plan would bend the cost curve all right, but it would bend it in the wrong direction. You see, the real overall cost of this bill would be $1.2 trillion. That's with a T. By 2019, the annual cost of the entitlement expansion would be $236 billion, and that would be rising at an annual rate of 9 percent every year. After all of this spending, there would still be around 20-some-odd million uninsured Americans. So, for those folks who are trying to keep score of all of this, that comes out to be about $35,000 per uninsured person out there.

Now, another promise that the President made was that he said, ``if you like your current coverage, you keep it.'' Well, again, look back to that government actuary whom we talked about before. According to that chief actuary, that's not true if you're a senior on Medicare, because 8.5 million seniors on Medicare today would lose their current coverage, and they would be forced into some different coverage.

Also contained in the bill are what we call arbitrary, across-the- board payment cuts to hospitals, to nursing homes and to home health agencies. Again, let's see what the chief actuary says. The chief actuary says the cuts could force such organizations, such as nursing homes and home health agencies, to leave the Medicare program and, thus, ``possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries.'' That doesn't really sound like keeping the coverage you want, does it?

So maybe now, finally, the Democrat leadership in Congress will start to listen to at least a few of the ideas put forward by the Republicans. What we want to do is try to increase the access to health care coverage, to increase access to the health care delivery system and to make insurance more portable and affordable. What we want to do is try to reduce those long-term spending plans and to reduce the curve downward in order to bring down the cost of medical liability and to create a sustainable health care system.

Finally, at the end of the day, Republicans stand today, as we have always in the past, ready to work with the Democrats to enact real reform to our health care delivery system as soon as they are ready to work with us.

I thank the gentleman from Alaska for recognizing what a fine piece of legislation it is and appreciate his support of this legislation as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3476. It is a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Citizens Advisory Commission through the year 2018. And both Representative Carney and I believe that this citizen action group serves as an important liaison between the National Park Service, their officials, and the neighbors in the area.

Many of my constituents have asked me to extend this commission, and I am pleased to have worked with Representative Carney on this legislation to do just that. Communication is the key to addressing and resolving citizens' concerns, and it's clear that the residents and the park users value the opportunity to respond to the park decisions as well as propose alternatives when they come up with those.

The Delaware Water Gap region has a turbulent history, if you know of it. One was marked by improper government interference and Federal invasion of rights of private property owners.

Back in the mid-1950s, the Federal Government proposed a plan to build a

dam across the Delaware River. This was the Tocks Island Dam Project, and it required the use of eminent domain, and the government seized many properties. Well, the project fell through and the property that was taken away is now known as the Delaware Water Gap Recreational Area. And residents in the area were upset by the creation of this recreation area. As a result, Congress passed legislation that established a citizens advisory commission, and that was back in 1988.

Now, this advisory commission was reauthorized for an additional decade back in 1998; and it's basically served as a forum, if you will, for the public to interact with park officials. Due to the combined efforts of the various commission members and park officials, the recreation area has now increased in popularity over the years, and we see literally millions of visitors each year. In fact, out of nearly 400 parks in the National Park system, the Delaware Water Gap was just named one of the top 10 most photogenic parks for fall foliage.

And I am confident that the Citizens Advisory Commission will continue to play a valuable role in preserving its splendor in this area and others for future generations.

It's the ability of local residents to communicate with Federal agencies that has been one of my main focuses here in Congress; and I call upon my colleagues--and I am glad that the gentleman from Alaska joins me in this effort--to join with Representative Carney and me to support this legislation.