Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to recognize the City of Chandler on its 50th anniversary of incorporation on July 10th. Alphonso Chandler and his brother Haskell moved their families from Georgia to the area located between Kickapoo Creek and the Neches River in 1859. As one of the first settlers in the area, Alphonso built a general store on his property. A U.S. Post Office was added in 1873, under the name of Stillwater. The Cotton Belt Railroad later made its way to the area in 1880, and Mr. Chandler deeded land to the Texas and St. Louis Railroad for tracks and a depot. Mr. Chandler also donated property for schools, churches and a cemetery. A new community grew around the railroad. What many may not know is that Chandler is the birthplace of Senator Ralph Yarborough who represented Texas in the U.S. Senate from 1957 to 1971. Many of his personal and public effects can be found at the Chandler Public Library. Chandler has become a gateway to Lake Palestine, a beautiful body of water that is home to many migratory birds and waterfowl, as well as great fishing and recreational boating. Traveling on South FM 315, one might catch a glimpse of our nation's emblem, the bald eagle, soaring over the lake. Chandler is a growing community and its citizens live by its motto, ``City with a Heart.'' I would like to congratulate the City of Chandler on its 50th anniversary of incorporation and recognize its citizens, both past and present, who have given so much to build a vibrant community.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the cause of our financial crisis is really Federal policy that strong-armed, that cajoled, that facilitated financial institutions to loan money to people to buy homes who couldn't afford to keep them, and people who decided to buy more home than they could afford and now expect their neighbors who didn't to bail them out. I mean, Mr. Speaker, it's not a matter of deregulation; it was a matter of dumb regulation. And there was no dumber regulation than that which created the government-sponsored enterprises, and gave them an affordable housing mission, and ended up buying the lion's share of troubled mortgages, or insuring the troubled mortgages in the system. Again, it wasn't deregulation; it was dumb regulation. And all this bill before us does is perpetuate the same dumb regulations that got us into this financial pickle in the first place. The bill before us doesn't go to the root cause. It leaves the government-sponsored enterprises, which represent among other things the mother of all taxpayer bailouts, $147 billion and counting, with $1 trillion of taxpayer exposure. They are left in place. Amendments Republicans offered to reform the government-sponsored enterprises, no, those are somehow out of order. Amendments that would have put them on budget, no, those are somehow out of order. And in fact, an amendment--there is only one little study in this. There are lots of studies; only one study dedicated to the government- sponsored enterprises. An amendment that would have ensured the study at least try to figure out how to make the taxpayer whole, the Democrats voted that down. They are even scared of a study that would somehow try to make the taxpayers whole. Instead, what does this bill do, Mr. Speaker? It creates a permanent bailout authority. There is only one reason to have a bailout authority, and that's for bailouts. If you want more taxpayer-funded bailouts, this is the bill for you. To paraphrase a line from the old Kevin Costner movie ``Field of Dreams,'' If you build it, they will come. That's the whole reason to have a bailout authority. The Federal Government can lend to failing firms. They can purchase the assets of failing firms. The Federal Government can guarantee the obligations of failing firms. The Federal Government can take a security interest in the assets of failing firms. This is a bailout authority. The big will get bigger, the small will get smaller, the taxpayer will get poorer. Now, I know our friends on the other side of the aisle continue to say, well, the taxpayer's not going to have to pay anything. Well, the Congressional Budget Office, headed by a Democrat, they seem to differ. I have a copy of their analysis of the bill dated June 28. ``CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would increase direct spending by $26.9 billion. Most of that amount would result from provisions that would establish a program for resolving certain financial firms that are insolvent or in danger of becoming insolvent.'' Now, they are notorious for low-balling these estimates, but even they say that ultimately taxpayers will be called upon for this bailout authority. Mr. Speaker, the best way to end taxpayer bailouts of failing firms is to end taxpayer bailouts of failing firms. And that's really the choice presented before us. Bankruptcy versus bailouts for failed Wall Street firms. The Democrats obviously choose bailouts. Second of all, Mr. Speaker, this is a job killer, pure and simple a job killer. It creates a new Federal institution to ban and ration consumer credit. The Chamber of Commerce, representing Main Street not Wall Street, estimates this will increase consumer interest 1.6 percent and that 4.3 percent fewer new jobs will be created. I hear from community bankers in my district. Cad Williams, East Texas National Bank: ``If I have more compliance costs, and the Federal Government is going to limit the types of customized credit products I can offer, we will lose jobs in Anderson County, Texas.'' I hear from constituents. Small businessman Tim Ratcliff of Combine, Texas: ``I own a small business. I am a distributor for promotional products that come from suppliers all over the country. Without easy, reliable access to that credit, I am out of business.'' Mr. Speaker, again, this is a job killer. I haven't even talked about the huge new expansion of government within this bill. This should be defeated.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today to express my strong support for the State of Israel, adding my voice alongside that of the millions of Americans who support the State of Israel. On May 31, Israeli forces took military action and boarded six ships in a flotilla that was attempting to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. No matter how regrettable the loss of life may be in this incident, it does not change the underlying fact that Israel has a right to defend herself, and in this case was exercising it. When Hamas seized control of Gaza, this terrorist organization used it as a base of operations from which to commit acts of terrorism against Israel and her citizens. In response, Israel imposed a blockade of Gaza to prevent weapons from reaching the hands of terrorists to be used to maim and kill innocent Israeli citizens. By implementing this policy and stemming the ability of Hamas to carry out acts of terrorism, Israel not only saved lives in Israel, but also has saved lives in Gaza. Had this flotilla truly been about providing humanitarian aid to Gaza, why did they not accept Israel's offer to let the ships dock at an Israeli port, be inspected, and then proceed over land to Gaza? Based on the flotilla's actions, it seems the political mission of attempting to break the Israeli blockade was of higher priority than the humanitarian mission of providing aid to Gaza. The State of Israel is one of the United States' staunchest allies, and our two nations have enjoyed a special relationship since the founding of the State of Israel over sixty years ago. Over the course of this relationship, the United States has proudly and unwaveringly stood by our friend and ally, Israel. We should and must continue to do so now.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, the question before us, with apologies to William Shakespeare, to bail out or not to bail out, that is the question. The motion to instruct by the ranking member says no more bailouts. Quite simply, it cannot be said any other way. Unfortunately, whether you're dealing with the House bill or the Senate bill, they are still identifying firms that in their view are too big to fail. Now the phrase that is used is systemically significant, systemically risky, but they are identifying firms for a specific regulatory scheme, and in the House version, as the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee pointed out, is a prefunded bailout fund. In the Senate version, they drop their prefunded, but there is an infinite line of credit that the FDIC can draw upon with respect to the Treasury. Again, if you have firms, Mr. Speaker, that are too big to fail, then you are saying they can't fail. If they can't fail, then at some point you're going to bail them out. Now, I've heard the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts, on many occasions say no taxpayer funds will be used. I heard him say it seconds earlier and I know he believes it and I know he means it, but unfortunately, the track record for him and many of his colleagues on that side of the aisle in predicting such is really not very good. The distinguished chairman was the same one who told us he didn't believe that taxpayers would be called upon to bail out Fannie and Freddie. Well, approximately $150 billion later, we know that Fannie and Freddie did have to be bailed out, that rolling the dice was not a good strategy. These are the same folks who also told us that the National Flood Insurance Program would never go broke, the crop insurance program, Medicare will never go broke. We've heard it before, Mr. Speaker. To somehow believe that ultimately taxpayers were not being called upon to have to bail out these firms is asking us frankly to ignore history and to suspend disbelief. Again, it is time to end the bailouts, and the motion to instruct would do that. Too big to fail becomes a self- fulfilling prophecy. Again, in many respects, the bill ought to be renamed the Perpetual Bailout Act of 2010. It has the wrong scheme. Bankruptcy is the proper scheme. Now, I know the chairman has told us, well, we have death panels for these financial firms. Well, what happened on Chrysler and GM on their so-called death panels? Well, we know that Washington decided to play favorites. Certain creditors were benefited at the expense of others. Unsecured creditors, particularly the UAW, United Automobile Workers, somehow they jet to the front of the line. Secured creditors, they go to the back of the line. It creates avenues for political favoritism in Washington, D.C. It will again lead to Washington picking winners and losers. We know how this ends. We know that AIG refused to make counter parties whole. CIT was designated too big to fail. They got billions of dollars. They failed anyway but it was resolved quickly. It is time to end the bailouts. The Nation cannot afford to be on the road to bankruptcy. It is time to end the bailouts, Mr. Speaker, and it is time to approve this motion to instruct.

Mr. HENSARLING. Is the distinguished chairman suggesting that we need deposit insurance for firms like Citigroup and Goldman Sachs? Is that what the gentleman is suggesting then?

Mr. HENSARLING. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HENSARLING. Well, I would say to the distinguished chairman that depositors are very different from investors, and when we have taxpayer money specifically at risk, it calls for a different regime.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, the American people understand that this Nation is facing a debt crisis. Congress, under control of our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, has seen the deficit increase almost tenfold since they took control of Congress. We know that President Obama has now submitted a budget which will double the national debt in 5 years and triple it in 10 from 2008. Madam Speaker, I serve on the President's Fiscal Responsibility Commission, and we have recently heard testimony that when a nation's gross debt equals 90 percent of its economy--in this case, GDP--that the needle has hit the red zone, that you can lose economic growth. And, on average, history tells us you can lose 1 percentage point, a full third. The Congressional Budget Office is predicting 3 percent economic growth. It could be 2 percent. Madam Speaker, the United States' gross debt is now at 89 percent of GDP, and the American people now know it's either you cut or your children may one day face bankruptcy. Spending is out of control. Our children are facing a future with fewer jobs, shrinking paychecks, smaller homes, an American Dream that is constricted and diminished. We are on the verge of being the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. And just this morning on the Budget Committee, Chairman Bernanke said that it is important that the Congress act today on the government- sponsored enterprises; it is important that the Congress act today on enacting a budget; it's important that the government act today to reduce the national debt that has an impact on economic growth and jobs today. But we have no plan, at least listening to the gentleman from Colorado. If we had a plan to deal with the GSEs, it has not ended in a success that the American people recognize. We're now looking at $147 billion of taxpayer bailout. Between the government-sponsored enterprises and the FHA, they now control approximately 95 percent of the market. More government control. And that's why the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Garrett, and I have introduced H.R. 4889, the GSE Bailout Elimination and Taxpayer Protection Act, to end this. And, instead, what we have from our other friends from the other side of the aisle is they actually exempt the government-sponsored enterprises who are at the epicenter of the financial crisis from the new legislation. Again, it is time that we put Fannie and Freddie on a road to market competition to end the perpetual bailouts, to save taxpayers money, because it's either you cut or your children pay for it.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I serve as the number two Republican on the House Budget Committee. But as a member of the House Budget Committee, I am a little bit like the Maytag repairman. We are the loneliest people in town. We have nothing to do, because, Mr. Speaker, there is no budget. The Democrats refuse to bring a budget. For the first time in the history of the House of Representatives there will be no budget, because the Democrats want no limit on what they can spend, no speed bump on the way to national bankruptcy. Today is no different. They spend even more money on a so-called extenders bill. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, the only thing that gets extended is the deficit; $25 billion of deficit extension in the first year, $54 billion of deficit extension over the next 10. Mr. Speaker, how much longer can we borrow 43 cents on the dollar from the Chinese and send the bill to our children and our grandchildren? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, Well, this bill is under PAYGO. We are going to save money. Well, if PAYGO works, why has the deficit increased tenfold under their watch? PAYGO remains a cruel hoax. Let me mention three loopholes in this bill. Well, $39.5 billion of spending is designated as an emergency. That falls outside of PAYGO. $21.9 billion of Medicare spending, the so-called doc fix, comes under something called directed scoring. It magically has no cost. Then we have the double accounting, $11.8 billion, and new taxes to be used, first to offset the cost, and then on a new oil spill fund. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle are using accounting gimmicks that would make Bernie Madoff blush. Is it any wonder that the national press reported that our national debt is now $13 trillion, the highest ever in American history? You cannot spend, borrow, and bail out your way to economic prosperity.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor a special organization of officials and individuals in the Fifth District of Texas, the Cedar Creek Veterans Foundation. President Coolidge once said, ``A nation which forgets its defenders, will itself soon be forgotten.'' Individuals in East Texas and Northeast Texas continue to amaze me for their tireless work in honoring soldiers and their families. The Cedar Creek Veterans Foundation was established to raise funds to assist Northeast Texas veterans with physical and emotional recovery, as well as physical rehabilitation of our wounded and injured warriors. They also provide organizations such as The Wounded Warrior Project and Fisher House of Dallas with resources and support. On June 7th, the Cedar Creek Veterans Foundation will be hosting a golf tournament and will donate all proceeds to the Fisher House in Dallas and The Wounded Warrior Project. The Fisher House in Dallas, Texas, is just one of several facilities that fulfill a great need for our nation's defenders and their families. As a private-public partnership, the foundation provides homes that are built at major military medical centers, as well as VA medical facilities. These homes give families the chance to be near loved ones during hospitalization. The Cedar Creek Veterans Foundation also sponsors ``Thunder Over Cedar Creek Lake'' annual air show during July 4th festivities that helps to raise funds to support our nation's veterans. This year's golf tournament will feature Jae Head, who most recently starred in the movie ``The Blind Side.'' The tournament's list of guests will also include former military members. John Wesley Tucker, Jr., a veteran pilot and instructor during World War II, will be honored during the event. The event will also feature three war heroes, Jesse W. Naul, Jr., who received the Navy Cross for his service during World War II; Richard S. Agnew, who received the Distinguished Service Cross serving the U.S. Army during the Korean War; and Dean E. DeTar, who received the Air Force Cross for his service during Vietnam War. These gentlemen are members of the Legion of Valor, and three of the nine members of the Legion of Valor that represent over 450,000 veterans in North Texas. I would like to thank everyone at the Cedar Creek Veterans Foundation, including CCVF President, Mr. Bob O'Neil, the board members and countless volunteers, supporters and donors who help to ensure our nation will not forget its defenders. It is an honor to represent such an outstanding organization and group of people in the Fifth District of Texas.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mine safety is a very serious issue. So is national bankruptcy. Under Democratic control, the deficit has exploded tenfold in just 2 years. We are seeing the national debt triple before our very eyes. We are borrowing 40 cents on the dollar from the Chinese and sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren. The Democrats have been on a spending spree that puts us on the road to becoming Greece. House Republicans are fighting back with a new program called YouCut, where the American people can participate in voting themselves to cut spending and to save their children money. And in just this week alone, 280,000 voted to cut a wasteful welfare program that has been associated with fraud. Mr. Speaker, the choice is simple: Either you cut or your children and grandchildren go bankrupt paying the national debt. Vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``yes'' for fiscal sanity. Vote ``yes'' for saving your children and grandchildren $2.5 billion that doesn't have to be borrowed from the Chinese.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor the students of Lakeview Centennial High School's Law Magnet program and their teacher, Mr. David Lanman. As a part of the SkillsUSA program, thirty-three students from Lakeview Centennial High School (LCHS) traveled to Corpus Christi, Texas, to represent their school and community at the 2010 Texas SkillsUSA Leadership and Skills Conference. The students won four of the five team events they entered and several of the students competed in and excelled at individual competitions, as well. I am pleased to recognize Aaron Winton, Courtney Shaw, Hayle Shipley, Stephanie Inda, Kaitiyn Walker, Kyle Cunningham, Joshua Waller, Kalen Lewis, Omar Roman, Celeste Leal, Katherine Bosler, Katherine Willis, Jade Flowers, Maria Barnett, Kaytlyn Plake, Kalina Edwards, Shone George, Kevin Garcia, Maria Villanueva, Alyssa Villafranco, Nicholas Barber, Aristephanes Angulo, Anthony Tarango, Samuel Johnson, Lincoln Mondy, Gabriella Filzow-Perez, Abigayl Holcom, Diamond Hunt, Jazmin Morgan, Nicholas Foster, Adam Colclasure, Victor Foreman and Justin Mathers. In addition, the students of the Chapter Business Team will advance to the SkillsUSA National Leadership and Skills Conference in Kansas City where they will represent LCHS for the fourth year in a row. I congratulate Thomas Byham, Jade Crutch, Francely Martinez, Katherine Willis, Ashley Walker, Rebecca Ojini and Brittney Brockman on this outstanding accomplishment and wish them the best of luck as they represent their school and their community. Lakeview students learn leadership skills and prepare for their future and their careers. These students, with the support and guidance of their teacher, Mr. Lanman, are making an impact at their school, in their community, and beyond. I am honored to recognize them today and to represent them in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to recognize the community and city leaders of Terrell, Texas. Terrell has been recognized in the state and by national publications for planning excellence and innovative, sustainable city planning. Kaufman County is not only one of the fastest growing counties in the State of Texas, but also the entire country. In 2008, U.S. Census data showed a 44% increase in the county's population from 2000. The City of Terrell is currently home to about 18,952 people, but is expected to be home to over 50,000 new residents by 2025. I would like to recognize Mayor Hal Richards and the city council, as well as Terrell City Manager Torry Edwards and the city staff, for their efforts and contributions to ensure Kaufman County residents will have a community that is equipped to handle the growth in the years to come.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I wish to celebrate the birth of Catherine Grace McCauley to her parents, Juli and Jared McCauley of Lubbock, Texas. Cate was born on April 13, 2010, at 11:15 p.m., weighing 7 pounds, 8 ounces and measuring 20 and one-half inches. Cate's proud grandparents are Michael and Cathy Buchanan and Roger and Diane McCauley. She is the great-grandchild of Joe and the late Billy Gene Buchanan, Troy and Marge Jones, Arline and the late Ward McCauley and Robert and Betty Minemier, Sr. Cameron and Stacey Buchanan and Dee and Jessica Buchanan are Cate's excited aunts and uncles. Madam Speaker, as a father of two children, I know what a momentous celebration this is for Juli, Jared and their entire family, for a child truly is a gift of the Lord. This family has prayed about Cate's arrival for years, and today, Madam Speaker, they can proclaim with a spirit of joy and thanksgiving, ``For this child I prayed; and the Lord hath given me my petition which I asked of him.''

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying health care legislation it is attempting to impose upon the American people. Despite the claim often made by my friends on the other side of the aisle, Republicans agree that we must reform health care in America. The current system is unsustainable, and simply doing nothing is not an option. While I strongly oppose the underlying legislation and the direction it proposes to take health care in America, I do not support inaction to reform health care. Simply doing nothing is not an option. My vision of health care reform will ensure that Americans can get the health care that you need, when you need it, and at a price you can afford. I want to provide all Americans with access to health care that is affordable, portable, accessible, of high quality, and preserves choice for Americans. In the health care reform debate, I believe it is critical that we remember the Hippocratic Oath: first, do no harm. Health care reform should also respect the sacredness of the doctor-patient relationship and ensure that the federal government does not interfere with the ability of patients and their doctors to make decisions about care. Health care reform should also lower costs for patients, and bend the overall health care cost curve downward. Health care in the United States represents one-sixth of our economy, and ultimately affects every man, woman, and child. Any health care reforms made will have an impact that is far and wide throughout America. It is critical that we ensure the reforms we pursue are the right reforms that will improve health care, because the wrong reforms could have devastating and long- lasting consequences for the greatest health care system in the world. As important as it is to reform health care quickly, it is more important to reform health care correctly. I believe five principles should guide any health reform effort. One, every American, regardless of health or financial status, should have access to affordable health care coverage of their choice. Nobody should go bankrupt because they get sick. Two, health care in America should be family-focused and patient-centered. It must put patients, in consultation with their doctors, in control of their health care. Your health care decisions should not be made by your employer, a health care plan selected by your employer, or the government. Three, people should own and control their health care plan, and it should be personal and portable. Four, Americans who are happy with their current plan should be allowed to keep it. Five, forcing Americans into a government health care program will not solve America's health care challenges. There are many ideas that I truly believe will help bring down the cost of health care for Americans without a government take-over. However, the only way to truly lower costs is to empower a competitive health care market for health care. Despite what you think we don't have a competitive marketplace today. To help spur the creation of one, several ideas stand out. First, Congress should pass meaningful medical liability reform. I have cosponsored legislation that would provide meaningful medical liability reform, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Health Care Act (H.R. 1086), and medical liability reform was included as part of the Republican substitute I voted for when the House debated its health care legislation in November 2009. Precious health care resources are wasted because physicians have to over-utilize health care and practice defensive medicine when treating patients in order to protect themselves from junk lawsuits pursued by trial lawyers. Enacting medical liability reforms would lower health care costs by cutting down on the practice of defensive medicine. Additionally, medical liability reform would help bring doctors back to those areas where junk lawsuits and high malpractice insurance has chased them away. Since 2003, when Texas enacted medical liability reform, the state has been flooded with applications of new physicians seeking to practice in Texas. In areas where specialists, such as OB/ GYN physicians, had long ago quit practicing, you now have an OB/GYN delivering babies once again. Additionally, I believe that Americans should be able to shop across state lines to find the health care plan that best suits their needs. Why can Americans buy car insurance across state lines, but they can't buy health insurance across state lines. By forcing health plan providers to compete, not only within their respective states for customers, but across the nation, competition will force insurers to deliver health care plans at competitive costs or see business go elsewhere. I have cosponsored legislation that would permit Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines, the Health Care Choice Act (H.R. 3217), and this commonsense reform was included in the Republican substitute considered during consideration of the House- passed health care bill. To further empower a competitive marketplace, individuals should be given the same tax incentive to go out into the marketplace to purchase their own health insurance that businesses are to provide health care for their employees. This current disparity in our tax laws leaves individuals tethered to employer-provided health care plans and the jobs that provide them. By empowering individuals to purchase individual health coverage and have the same tax-advantaged basis as employer-provided coverage, we can free employees to shop around for coverage that best suits them, instead of simply taking what their employers offer. Additionally, I have cosponsored Representative Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America's Future Act (H.R. 4529). This sweeping piece of legislation takes our nation's toughest fiscal challenges head on and solves them. In addition to making both Medicare and Social Security solvent for future generations, this legislation would also reform our health care system in a patient-centered manner that harnesses the power of the marketplace--not government--to provide Americans with access to high-quality, affordable health care. It does so without raising taxes or inserting a federal bureaucrat between you and your doctor. When it comes to health care reform, the American people want a tune- up, they don't want repossession. The massive power grab that the underlying health care legislation represents will fundamentally change the relationship between the government and its citizens. For example, the Senate-passed health care legislation requires all Americans to have bureaucrat-approved health insurance or else be subject to criminal penalties. I believe such a requirement to be unconstitutional to begin with. However, even if it is one day ruled constitutional by our nation's judiciary, if the federal government requires you to buy health insurance today, what is it going to require you to buy tomorrow? Such a provision significantly moves us towards waking up one day and finding that the sovereign power in our nation rests not with ``we the people'' but with ``we the government.'' I also oppose the underlying health care legislation because of its blatant disregard for the sanctity of human life. Despite the fig-leaf attempts to cloud the issue, fundamentally, this is the most pro- abortion piece of legislation to be considered by Congress since the tragic Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade. The Senate-passed bill does nothing more than set up an accounting gimmick for government- subsidized health care plans that cover elective abortions participating in the exchanges. If the legislation truly embodied the principle that no federal funds would be used to subsidize elective abortions, the Stupak-Pitts amendment that this House approved as part of the House-passed health care bill on November 7, 2009 would be in the legislation today. To the glaring absence of the Stupak-Pitts language, my friends on the other side of the aisle are now pointing to the promise of an Executive Order from President Obama. While such an Executive Order may seem to be a protection for the unborn, it is nothing of the sort. First, the underlying Senate-passed bill that will become law if passed by this House and signed into law by President Obama contains provisions that specifically set up mechanisms whereby federal taxpayer money could be used to subsidize or pay for elective abortions. Supreme Court decisions have reaffirmed that an Executive Order cannot override a statue in law. Secondly, just as easily as an Executive Order is given, an Executive Order can be taken away. Even if you believed that President Obama's Executive Order protected the rights of the unborn, it would have no lasting permanence. To overturn this Executive Order, a future president--or even President Obama himself--need only issue an Executive Order canceling it, leaving the protection of the unborn up to the stroke of a pen. I also oppose the underlying legislation for the provisions that threaten the health care of our seniors and the future of Medicare. The underlying legislation contains over one-half trillion dollars in Medicare cuts. Within those cuts, Medicare Advantage plans are particularly hit hard. Medicare Advantage plans are currently providing quality health care coverage to millions of American seniors. These plans have grown in popularity over the years, demonstrating their appeal as seniors have voted with their feet to enroll in them. The cuts to Medicare Advantage in the Senate-passed bill would endanger the current health care coverage of seniors who have it, breaking a fundamental promise made by Democrats throughout this debate that if you like your current health care coverage, you could keep it. The Medicare cuts are also troubling to me because, instead of being reinvested in the Medicare benefit to improve the solvency and future of Medicare, they are used to help pay for the new health care entitlement created in the underlying legislation. Medicare is already on the road to insolvency in the near future. According to the 2009 Medicare Trustees Report, Medicare has $38 trillion in unfunded liabilities--promises made already that we can't pay for--and the Medicare Trust Fund will go broke in 2017. Since we will already have challenges paying for the Medicare benefits we've already promised, why are we taking money from Medicare and spending it elsewhere, instead of working to increase the solvency of Medicare to protect it for future beneficiaries? On top of the reasons I've stated previously, I also oppose this legislation because it contains jobs-killing tax increases. The underlying legislation also includes approximately one-half trillion dollars in tax increases. While I believe that raising taxes is never the solution, how can anyone believe that raising taxes during our current economic troubles is a good idea? Despite the unprecedented spending spree that President Obama and Congressional Democrats embarked upon in February 2009, the United States continues to have an unemployment rate that is near double digits and the economy continues to shed jobs. At the outset of this year, the majority announced that jobs were their number one legislative priority. Yet, how can jobs be the number one priority when legislation that contains jobs-killing tax increases is being brought before us today? The final reason that I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation is that, simply put, the United States cannot afford this new entitlement. Do my friends on the other side of the aisle know that our country is going broke? Before President Obama took office, America was headed toward a fiscal cliff. However, instead of working to improve our fiscal situation, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have stepped upon the accelerator hastening the day of fiscal reckoning. Overall, under honest accounting standards, this legislation will cost $2.6 trillion--or over $22,000 per household. It is a bill that is filled with budget gimmicks, and the true cost obfuscated by smoke and mirrors accounting that would make Bernie Madoff blush. This legislation takes the half-trillion in Medicare cuts and uses them to pay for the new spending in the bill. Yet, somehow it also claims to use the savings from Medicare to increase Medicare's solvency. How can one set of Medicare savings be used twice? The underlying legislation also raids the Social Security Trust Fund to the tune of $53 billion, taking funds that would be destined to pay future Social Security benefits and instead uses them to reduce the overall cost of the bill. The benefits those funds were supposed to pay for will still have to paid for eventually, requiring taxpayers to make up the difference. This legislation also creates a new entitlement program known as the CLASS Act, which is supposed to be supported by premiums. However, to help bring the cost of the underlying legislation down, Democrats take the premiums from this program and spend them elsewhere. Thus, premiums that should be supporting this program are used elsewhere, leaving taxpayers to make up the lost funds in the future. This accounting gimmick is so bad, that even Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad has called this ``a ponzi scheme.'' This legislation is also fiscally dishonest because it attempts to hide its true cost through manipulation of congressional scoring procedures. The underlying legislation will collect 10 years of revenues to pay for 6 years of spending. By delaying the onset of benefits, Democrats are attempting to hide the cost of their health care legislation. Do Democrats intend for the health care bill to be turned off every decade for 4 years? Certainly not, but this setup is not by chance, as its purpose is to get the 10 year cost of the bill down. In order to draw attention away from the fiscal flaws with this legislation, Democrats have been waiving estimates from CBO claiming their bill reduces the deficit. The dirty Washington secret is that CBO estimates are based on what is put in front of them. If you give CBO garbage on one side, garbage comes out the other. For instance, the underlying legislation assumes that physicians will receive a 21 percent Medicare reimbursement cut later this year. However, prior to today, Speaker Pelosi has already announced her support for passing what Washington calls the ``doc fix.'' Yet, the underlying bill assumes a 21 percent physician reimbursement cut. Instead of putting the ``doc fix'' in the underlying legislation, it was left out to ensure that the overall cost of the bill officially was lower. However, this does nothing to lower the overall cost to the American people. In fact, when you assume the ``doc fix'' will occur as well, CBO says the deficit will actually be increased as a result of passing the underlying legislation. In a March 19, 2010 letter to Representative Paul Ryan, CBO writes, ``You asked about the total budgetary impact of enacting the reconciliation proposal (the amendment to H.R. 4872), the Senate- passed health bill (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010-2019 period.'' Democrats are either going to cut physician payments by 21 percent, or they're not going to and increase the deficit. They can't have it both ways. Despite the protests of my friends across the aisle, the bill before us today cannot be mistaken for anything other than what is it is: a government take-over of our health care. This legislation takes health care in our nation in a fundamentally different direction as it puts a federal bureaucrat or politician between you and you doctor by empowering the federal government to substitute its decision-making regarding your health care decisions in place of that of you and your doctor. If you love the way the federal government has run AIG, our banks, and our auto companies, you'll love the way they run your health care. But even more than cost, this is really a debate about who will control the health care resources of this Nation and who will control the health care decisions of our families. If we pass this bill, we will wake up one day only to find that when our loved ones become ill, they will wait weeks, perhaps months, to see a mediocre doctor of the government's choosing, only to be told by that same doctor that he cannot help because his treatment must be limited by the government protocol. To see what health care in America could look like in the years to come, we need only look to those systems in the United Kingdom and Canada that the underlying health care legislation before us today tries to take us in the direction of. After hearing the stories of how those systems provide health care, I can't imagine any American who would want our health care experiences to be like those of the British and Canadians. Would you want you or your loved ones to have the experience of Linda O'Boyle from Great Britain? Linda was a 64 year old mother of 3 and grandmother of 4 who was fighting cancer. After weeks of chemotherapy, doctors told her there wasn't much they could do for her. However, her consultant suggested a new drug called Cetuximab, which he applied for permission from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to treat her with this drug, but was denied. Linda and her husband decided to pay for the drug themselves out of their savings. However, this was a violation of National Health Service policy and Linda was denied the ``free'' treatment by the NHS because she had privately paid for a cancer medication that prolonged her life. The NHS completely withdrew treatment, including chemotherapy. Linda died in March 2008. The Southend University Hospital NHS foundation trust, where Linda was getting her treatment said in a statement: ``A patient can choose whether to continue with the treatment available under the NHS or opt to go privately for a different treatment regime. It is explained to the patient that they can either have their treatment under the NHS or privately, but not both or in parallel.'' Would you want you or your loved ones to have the experience that David Malleau of Canada did? David was a 44 year old truck driver who was in a bad car accident in 2004. Doctors were forced to remove a fist-piece size of bone from his skull to relieve pressure on his brain. After the swelling subsided, he was ready for surgery in March 2005. He was sent home and placed on a waiting list for surgery to replace the removed portion of his skull. Because of the threat of something hitting the exposed side of his brain, David was confined to his home while waiting on the surgery. Ultimately, he waited nearly a year for skull replacement surgery. Would you want you or your loved ones to have the experience of Lindsay McCreith? Lindsay is a man in his 60s who went to the ER and a CT scan showed a large wedge-shaped brain tumor. He was discharged from the hospital 4 days later with a diagnosis of a stroke and given anti- seizure medication. Wanting to see if the tumor was cancerous, Lindsay wanted an MRI. He was given an appointment for one 4 months later. Not wanting to wait that long, Lindsay came to the United States and paid $494.67 for the MRI. He took the results to his Canadian family doctor, who referred him to a neurologist. He was examined by the neurologist and referred to a neurosurgeon. However, to see the neurosurgeon, Lindsay would have to wait 3 months. Not wanting to wait that long to determine if he had cancer, Lindsay returned to the US and a biopsy found the tumor was malignant, and the tumor was subsequently surgically removed. My friends on the other side of the aisle think that won't and can't happen in America. If the underlying bill becomes law, I hope and pray they are right. Unfortunately, I have low expectations that the experiences of patients in the United Kingdom and Canada can be avoided in the United States if this health care legislation becomes law. I think another indication of the future of health care in America can be found in career paths that current physicians recommend to their own children. Since the health care reform debate began in 2009, I had the opportunity to meet with dozens of physicians throughout the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, which I have the privilege to represent. In my discussions with these physicians, I asked them whether or not they would recommend to their children a career in medicine as a physician. With very few exceptions, these physicians told me that they have encouraged their children to seek careers elsewhere, as they believe physicians in the future will not be able to provide the care that is right for their patients, but will be limited to providing the care that is approved by the government. This anecdotal evidence is of great concern to me, because if current physicians won't even encourage their own children to practice medicine, will Americans continue to see our best and brightest students continue to choose medicine? My fear is that we will not, and in the future you will be seeing the doctor who was a ``C'' student, instead of seeing a doctor who was an ``A'' student, like you can today. In America, we must never confuse the social safety net with the slippery slope to socialism. When it comes to the health care of my family, when it comes to the health care of my country, I reject the hubris and arrogance of government social engineering, and I embrace the affordability and portability that comes by preserving the liberties of the American people. Mr. Speaker, if this legislation passes and becomes law, Americans will not stop being Americans. Each generation of Americans before us has passed on a legacy of more freedom and opportunity than the one it was left. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren to make their pursuit of happiness easier than our own. This legislation takes us in the exact opposite direction. But despite the obstacles that Washington places along their paths in pursuit of their own happiness, Americans will continue to work hard, think hard, and employ the exceptionalism that has made our nation the beacon of freedom that we are today. Americans will find a way, Madam Speaker, to overcome the new taxes, the new spending, and the new mandates that are contained in this legislation. They will find a way-- they must find a way--if we are to keep the Republic that we inherited from our forefathers.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, the vote we take tonight very well may unalterably change the role of government in a society whose most cherished birthright is that of personal freedom. There are so many reasons to oppose this legislation. Taxpayer-funded abortions, the sleazy backroom deals that brought us the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana purchase, the pharmaceutical payoff, one-half trillion dollars in tax increases on an economy where millions have lost their jobs and can still find no gainful employment. As a member of the House Budget Committee, let me give you one more: We can't afford it. Our government can't even pay for the promises it has made current generations, much less future generations. After giving us the largest deficits in American history, after proposing to triple the national debt in the next 10 years, Democrats today want to add $2.6 trillion of new spending to the Federal budget, costing every household $22,000. That is more money to borrow from the Chinese, more bills to send to our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, you cannot improve the health care of a Nation by bankrupting its children. I have seen the Democrats' Congressional Budget Office letter about cost. Garbage in, garbage out. When you put facts in, you get facts out. My Congressional Budget Office letter says the program will add to the deficit. But even more than cost, this is really a debate about who will control the health care resources of this Nation and who will control the health care decisions of our families. If we pass this bill, we will wake up one day only to find that when our loved ones become ill, they will wait weeks, perhaps months, to see a mediocre doctor of the government's choosing, only to be told by that same doctor that he cannot help because his treatment must be limited by the government protocol. In America, we must never confuse the social safety net with the slippery slope to socialism. When it comes to the health care of my family, when it comes to the health care of my country, I reject the hubris and arrogance of government social engineering, and I embrace the affordability and portability that comes by preserving the liberties of the American people.

Mr. HENSARLING

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

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, after the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana purchase, the Gator aid, the labor union bailout, the sweetheart deals for the pharmaceutical companies, now we're told that the Democrats are simply going to deem the Senate bill without voting on it. Not 1 hour ago, I had Jennifer Neill of Athens, Texas, a middle schooler, in my office, and she said, That's not right. Why is something obvious to a middle schooler such a mystery to the Speaker and the Democrats? What's not right is to ignore the wishes of the American people. What's not right is to have the government force you to buy health insurance. What's not right is to take health care decisions away from your doctor and give them to Washington bureaucrats and politicians. What's not right is adding $2.7 trillion in new spending as the Democrats triple our national debt and bankrupt Americans. What is right is to scrap the bill, start over, and let freedom ring in America.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, already in just 2 years, an 84 percent increase in enacted spending, 84 percent, a $1.2 trillion stimulus bill that has us mired in 10 percent unemployment, a $450 billion omnibus bill, another $400 billion omnibus bill. The explosion of spending is unprecedented in our Nation's history. And that leads us to the vote that is before us today. Increase the debt limit for the third time in 12 months; increase it another $1.9 trillion, our Democratic colleagues say, so that we can increase the burden per household $16,214. Where will it all end? And now, just this week, we hear from the President of the United States: we haven't spent enough. Let's spend some more. Let's propose a budget that will simply triple--triple--the national debt over 10 years. Madam Speaker, the American people are tired of the spending, tired of the debt, tired of the deficits, and certainly tired of the bailouts. And don't take my word for it, Madam Speaker. Let's hear what CNBC had to say about the matter of the President's budget: ``part of a record $3.8 trillion budget that would boost the deficit beyond any in the Nation's history.'' The New York Times: ``The budget projects that the deficit will peak at nearly $1.6 trillion.'' It goes on to say: ``and remain at economically troublesome levels over the remainder of the decade.'' Wall Street Journal: ``All of this spending must be financed, and so deficits and taxes are both scheduled to rise to record levels.'' And so what do we hear? We hear from our Democratic friends, well, let's have PAYGO. Well, what did we learn about PAYGO? Number one, they have already had a House rule for 2 years. And at least as practiced in the last fiscal year, 98 percent, Madam Speaker, 98 percent of all spending was either waived or it was exempt. PAYGO is a budget fig leaf. Well, what does the President suggest? He says let's freeze spending. But what we discover when we run the numbers is that he doesn't turn on the freezer for a year. He turns it off quite soon after that. And when you plug in the numbers, it is a difference between growing government 49.27 percent versus 49.01. They are bankrupting America. Reject this vote and reject this debt limit.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I heard one of my Democratic colleagues say that today is a historic day, that there is a historic opportunity. And yes, history is being made today because never in the history of America has the debt limit been increased to $14.294 trillion. Here we are again, just a few months later, enacting yet another increase in the debt limit. The new debt limit, again, $14.3 trillion, costing every American household over $120,000. What do I hear from my Democratic colleagues? Well, we hear the old blame game. That's the first thing that we hear. We hear a lot of names from the past. Well, facts are pesky things, Madam Speaker. Listen, there is blame to go around. My party spent too much money. I have a chart right here. It's Congress that controls the purse strings, as we all know. And when the Republicans controlled Congress--this is the blue--these were our deficits. They averaged about $104 billion a year. I'm embarrassed about that. It's much too high. Now in their 3 years of control by the Democrats, we have deficits that are averaging over $1 trillion, $1.1 trillion. That's the difference. What was once our annual deficits have become their monthly deficits, Madam Speaker. That's totally unacceptable. More history was made earlier this week when the President submitted his proposed budget that so many of my friends on the other side of the aisle decided to embrace. It made history. It is breathtaking in its red ink. It spends $3.8 trillion. The largest budget in American history is being proposed. It proposes a $1.6 trillion deficit, the highest deficit in the history of our Nation, over 10 percent of our economy. We haven't seen debt-to-economy ratios like this since World War II. It triples the national debt in just 10 years. Yes, this is a historic day because, once again, we are here to accommodate the spending agenda of the Democrats with a historic new increase in the debt limit. Madam Speaker, I will just ask this question: Where are the jobs? We were told that if we went off and if we passed this government stimulus plan, that somehow unemployment would never go above 8 percent. What do we have? We have an extra $1 trillion in debt from that act, and we are still mired in double-digit unemployment. You cannot spend, borrow and bail out your way to prosperity.

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman. Again, we have seen it. It's almost a year later, and yet the Democrats continue to try more of the same. Borrow, spend, bail out your way into prosperity. And what do we have? Again, an additional $1.2 trillion in debt, and over 3 million more of our fellow countrymen have lost their jobs. Small businesses are wondering who's going to pay for all this? They're concerned about the $2 trillion takeover of health care. Who's going to pay for that? They're concerned about the threatened $800 billion carbon tax, the energy tax. Who is going to pay for that? The omnibuses. Is it any wonder that jobs are not being created in America? I speak, Madam Speaker, to small businessmen and investors every week, and they tell me, We're too scared to create jobs in this environment. Are we going to have rapid inflation? Are there going to be huge tax increases? Are Congress and the President going to vilify us once again? And my colleagues wonder where, where are the jobs. You cannot borrow and spend and bail out your way to prosperity.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Again, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Now, this covers the last several years of when Republicans controlled the budget. It's in the blue, and you can see declining budget deficits until the Democrats took control of Congress.

Mr. HENSARLING. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly appreciate his leadership tonight on an issue that is of great concern to every American. Every American who has children, every American who has grandchildren and are wondering, What is Washington doing drowning them in a sea of red ink? Again, when you say, How much is enough, we are already there. So I think it's been somewhat of a surreal experience for the American people as of late to see Washington go mad. Never in the history of our Nation, do I believe, have I seen such an explosion of spending of deficits and debt. As a lot of the public know, the President of the United States on Friday came and spoke to the Republicans in the House, and I give the President credit for doing it. I think it speaks well of his character that he would come and speak to us, something that our own Speaker I don't believe has ever done. I had the opportunity to speak to the President at that exchange, and I asked our President, I said, Mr. President, your last budget that you submitted tripled the national debt over 10 years and took the cost of government from its historic level of roughly 20 percent of our economy up to 25 percent. I mean, we haven't seen such levels of government since World War II, the cost of government relative to the economy. I asked the President that question, and the President didn't answer. The President declined to answer the question on Friday. But you know what, he answered the question on Monday, and he answered the question with this document because on Monday, the President submitted his proposed budget for the United States of America for the next fiscal year and for the 9 years following. Guess what we found out in this document? What we found out was that the answer to the question is a resounding ``yes.'' President Obama has now said to the American people loud and clear, Yes, I will triple the national debt over 10 years. I will triple the national debt. Yes, I will take the level of government to levels we haven't seen since World War II, up to 25 percent of our economy. This is a breathtaking document. The levels of debt, the levels of deficit, the levels of spending are simply breathtaking. The largest budget in the American history, $3.8 trillion.

Mr. HENSARLING. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and it's an important point to make. Simply because, as opposed to leading, too often, frankly, we see the President, we see the Speaker, we see our colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying, Well, the truth is, you Republicans spent too much money. Well, guess what? I agree. But only Congress, only Congress can spend money. Congress has the power of the purse. The only money the President can spend are those monies that are authorized by Congress. Now, the President can propose. The President may be given pots of money by Congress that he can allocate. But, ultimately, it is Congress that controls the power of the purse under our Constitution. Now, we had 12 years where Republicans controlled Congress, wrote the budgets, wrote the spending bills. And I wasn't proud of the deficits that occurred in those years, but they averaged about $104 billion a year.

Mr. HENSARLING. Well, if the gentleman would yield, I think the most important point here--and we shouldn't spend, obviously, a lot of time on the blame game. The American people want solutions. But what we typically hear from our friends on the other side who aren't offering a solution to the fiscal crisis is that it's your fault. Here's what I would say. I'm sorry that Republicans spent as much as they did, but our average deficit when we controlled spending was $104 billion. We've now had 3 years for Democrats to control spending, and the average deficit is $1.1 trillion. And so, what I would tell the gentleman and the American people is that what was an annual deficit under Republicans has turned into a monthly deficit under Democrats. And again, I'm not proud of the spending. Many of us on this floor fought our own party leaders for more fiscal restraint. But as far as an order of magnitude, I mean, you can't even compare the two. When it comes to spending and deficits, Republicans are rank amateurs compared to Democrats.