Randy Neugebauer

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, in today's Wall Street Journal, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, an appointee of Speaker Pelosi, stated, ``The U.S. Federal budget deficit is on a trajectory that poses significant economic risks.'' According to Mr. Elmendorf, ``the U.S. is entering unfamiliar territory in its level of public debt.'' In fact, a report by the CBO shows that the President's budget drives debt to an alarming 90 percent of our economy by 2020, making the U.S. public debt load one of the highest. The Federal Government must rein in its spending, and it must cut costs, just as families and businesses all across the 19th Congressional District are doing. We have two paths on which to set our compass. We can set our path towards empowerment or we can set our path towards entitlement. One offers opportunity and hope; the other offers uncertainties. America deserves a choice that gets the budget and the economy back on a sustainable path.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2554, and I also want to thank my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Scott) for his leadership on this legislation. We introduced this legislation almost 1 year ago with strong bipartisan support. Mr. Scott has worked with the House leadership to help get this bill to the floor today, and I certainly appreciate his efforts. This bill sets up a private nonprofit insurance system that will help insurance agents and brokers do business across State lines more efficiently. Not only does this help reduce regulatory burden for agents, but it also helps consumers by giving them more choices. At its core, this is really a small business bill. Most insurance agents and brokers are independent small businesses; they don't have a lot of employees. So when they have to file paperwork for multiple States in order to do business across State lines, that only adds more cost for their compliance. Under this bill, they can register with the new National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers, NARAB, and that will serve as a portal for them to be licensed more easily in other States. In today's economy, this bill makes sense for small businesses. If a customer moves to another State but wants to keep his insurance agent that has worked for him for years, this bill will streamline the process for that agent to be licensed in other States. If a customer wants that agent's trust to help them with policies for an elderly parent that they are caring for who lives in another State, this bill also makes that feasible. H.R. 2554 provides a way to streamline insurance agent licensing across State lines without creating a new government bureaucracy, with no cost to the taxpayers, with consistent consumer protections, and without new mandates on States. This bill empowers insurance agents and their customers without making the government bigger or more expensive. The option for NARAB was first included in the 1999 Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act, but the bar was not set high enough. Congress realized that in 2008 when the House passed this legislation by voice vote. While the Senate did not take up the bill last time, my hope is that broad bipartisan support in the House again will move this much-needed bill forward. We've had a lot of debate and discussion in the Financial Services Committee about the big picture for insurance regulation. There are a lot of perspectives on that issue. The good news about this bill, however, is that this is one insurance reform that we can all agree on. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It's good for small businesses, it's good for our community agents, and it's good for the customers that they serve. I also again want to thank Mr. Scott for his cooperation and this bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2554. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, just last week, I was traveling across my district to ask the people in the 19th Congressional District, How do we move America away from this entitlement mode, which we seem to be moving toward, and back to an empowerment mode so we can create jobs? With 9.2 percent of the American people unemployed, people want to know what we are going to do about jobs. What they do know is that the government can't continue what it has been doing, which is taxing too much, spending too much, and borrowing too much--mortgaging the future of our future generations. I asked a number of businesspeople, Why aren't you hiring more people? Why aren't you expanding your plants? The overriding answer was, Congressman, it's too uncertain right now. Congress is talking about raising our taxes, imposing insurance on us, talking about more regulation, raising the cost of energy in this country. If you continue down that road, we can't create new businesses. In fact, in many cases, we will have to lay off people if we move in that direction. So, Mr. Speaker, what we have to do is quit doing what we have been doing and get back to making America the great Nation it is by empowering the people. That means taking less taxes and letting businesses do what they know how to do, which is to create jobs. Take away the uncertainty of the business environment in this country today, which is causing many businesses across the country either to lay off or not to hire people. Mr. Speaker, we need to empower America. We need to quit entitling America.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, in celebration of Black History Month, I want to recognize Claudie C. Royal for his dedication to the 19th Congressional District of Texas, as well as his leadership in honoring Black History Month in Abilene, Texas. Although Claudie passed away in 2008, the Abilene community continues to carry on his memory and the initiatives he started. Claudie was born on February 15, 1945 in Marlin, Texas, and raised in Abilene where he graduated from Woodson High School. After high school, Claudie married his high school sweetheart, Lula, on April 13, 1964. He also attended Cisco Jr. College and was an active member of Plum Street United Methodist Church. For over 18 years, Claudie was employed by the Keebler Cookie Company. Abilene remembers Claudie for planning many community activities and for his boldness in executing these plans. He dedicated his life to the youth, the elderly, the truly disadvantaged and those in the community who were not being treated fairly. He encouraged others to become involved in the community. In 1980, Claudie organized an annual march honoring the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Today that annual march and associated activities are widely acknowledged and participated in by the citizens of Abilene. In 1981, Claudie was the driving force behind the development of a park constructed in the community of Pasadena Heights in Abilene. Through Claudie's influence, the park was named to honor Mr. Nelson Wilson, Sr., a community leader and long time resident of the city. In 1989, Claudie established H.O.P.E., a successful organization devoted to stopping and preventing youth drug use. In 1995, he was honored with the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Human Services Award. After his death, the Abilene City Council permanently named February 15 as Claudie C. Royal Day to honor him. Claudie was a strong Christian and family man. Claudie and Lula had 5 children: Michael, Cedric, deceased, Michelle, Mitchell and Matthias Royal, and five grandchildren: Mylles, Michael Ryan, BriAnna, Myller, and Mylliah. During Black History Month, we pay tribute to generations of African Americans who struggled with adversity and made great contributions to shaping our Nation. We should keep in mind those who made a difference in their communities, and Claudie Royal truly made a difference in Abilene, Texas. The 19th Congressional District thanks Claudie for the imprint he left on his community. Even though he is no longer with us, we remember his devoted service to Abilene.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, I was absent from votes on February 22, 2010. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 49 and ``yea'' on rollcall 50.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, in celebration of Black History Month, I would like to recognize Thomas James ``T.J.'' Patterson for his dedication to the 19th Congressional District of Texas, as well as his leadership in honoring Black History Month in Lubbock, Texas. Born in Waxahachie, Texas on June 29, 1937, T.J. was raised in Wichita Falls and graduated from Booker T. Washington High School in 1954. He then went on to attend Bishop College and in 1958 received a degree in Physical Education. After graduation, T.J. came to Lubbock where he met and married his bride of over 50 years, Bobbie Gean. In 1961, T.J. was drafted into the U.S. Army where he valiantly served his country. After an honorable discharge, T.J. spent several years teaching at the Texas Tech University. In 1977, T.J. co-founded the Southwest Digest, a newspaper that has served as a strong voice for Lubbock's African American community for over 30 years. In 1984, T.J. was elected as the first African American to serve on the Lubbock City Council, breaking down barriers for others to serve in public offices throughout the community, and I had the honor of serving with T.J. on the City Council. After 20 years of serving as the representative for District 2, T.J. retired from the Lubbock City Council in 2004 as the longest serving council member in Lubbock's history. In addition to this service, T.J. was elected president of the Texas Municipal League in 1998, becoming the first African American president in that organization's history. T.J. is an active member of the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church. He is a legend in Lubbock's fight against illegal drugs. Over the past several years, T.J. has organized and participated in countless marches against drugs and violence. T.J. is an incredible role model for not only African American children, but all youth. T.J. and his wife have a branch of the Lubbock Public Library named after them, the Bobbie Gean and T.J. Patterson Library, and the library hosts annual events in honor of Black History Month. They are pillars of the community and can be found visiting inmates in the local jail on Christmas Day offering messages of encouragement. I am honored to know T.J. His message to us is that Black History is every day, not just one month out of the year. He is a hero, a public servant and a dreamer; a man of character and a faithful man of God. On behalf of the 19th Congressional District, including myself, I thank T.J. for all he has given and continues to give our community.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express great concern on behalf of our children and our grandchildren who are going to bear the burden of this expansion of our national debt. Today we're going to vote on the sixth increase in the debt limit in the past 2\1/2\ years. After today we will have added $4 trillion to the government credit limit. Who's going to pay this bill? Congress must address the root of this debt limit increase. It's the spending. I want to point to a chart here that the President the other night came and talked to us about his spending freeze. So here is the impact of the freeze on spending. I know it's a little hard to tell, but if you look real closely, you see that you get a 49.27 percent growth in spending without the freeze, but with the freeze you get a 49.01 percent increase in spending. It's a gimmick. This whole PAYGO thing is a sham. We just had a gentleman in New York that was doing a kind of a sham transaction, and he's probably going to--in fact, he is in prison for a Ponzi scheme. That's what this whole situation is is a Ponzi scheme, because what we're doing is we're borrowing and spending and borrowing and spending; we're borrowing the money to make the interest payments on the debt that we already have. And what do the Democrats want to do? They want to borrow some more money. If you were serious about spending, I offered two amendments yesterday to the Rules Committee that would have put some caps on spending, would have begun to decelerate the growth of government. Those rules, are they eligible to be considered on this floor today? No, they were denied. You see, if we keep putting off and playing the Ponzi scheme game, we're going to keep running up the debt for our children and our grandchildren. What does PAYGO really mean, the PAYGO vote that we're going to have? It means the American people get to pay and the Democrats get to go spending, taxing and borrowing, just like they've been doing since they took control of this House 3 years ago. But they want you to think today that they have brought some real reform to this body. We passed PAYGO in 2007. Guess what we've done since we've passed PAYGO? We've raised the debt limit five times. And, in fact, in 1998, of the bills that came across this floor, 98 percent of the time, PAYGO was either waived or exempted from that. And as the gentleman pointed out a while ago, and I appreciate him doing that, a majority of the text of this bill isn't about how we're going to cut spending; it's about the things that we're going to waive that aren't going to be subject to PAYGO. So if we're serious about cutting spending in this country because we're serious about this debt, then why aren't we taking steps that really are going to address spending? The reason that they don't want to address spending is they don't intend to cut spending. They intend to raise taxes. I encourage my colleagues to vote against the rule.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government is simply trying to do too much at too high a cost to the American people. Thomas Jefferson called for ``a wise and frugal government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.'' And he was right. Government should be empowering citizens to succeed in our economy, not eroding their freedoms and encouraging dependency. The American people are fed up with rapidly growing government intruding into their lives. They want us to do something about it. My message is simple: To get America back, we must restore our Founders' principles of empowerment. I'm working on an empowerment agenda and will be here in the weeks to come talking about how we can advance empowerment and reduce entitlement. This has been an empowerment moment, and there will be many more as we watch our administration continue to tax and spend money that we don't have and steal the future of our future generations by leaving them with a legacy of debt.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. The other gentleman from Ohio brought up a point about the current interest payment that is approaching a billion dollars at the most historically low rate time in the history of our country. The gentleman reminded all of us there was a time in our country, and I was in business when we were paying 15, 16, 17 percent for money. It was hard to get, and once you got it, you had to have a really good idea to make it. So you begin to think about what happens to our interest payments if we--let's just say we doubled the interest rates that the Treasury is doing right now. That begins to double the payment. So now instead of $1 billion, it is $2 billion. What that begins to do is, as we put together our budget, there is less and less money for discretionary spending because the first thing you have to do is make your mortgage payment, and we are mortgaging the future of our country. So these are important issues and I appreciate the gentleman bringing that point up. I think the other thing that kind of concerns a lot of people is the point that the gentleman made about our creditors. What if China, for example, who is our largest creditor, and as the gentleman points out, they have said, We are not quite sure what our appetite in the future is for continuing to loan America money to just spend and borrow without some kind of discipline, and that is something that we have to look at. I have another chart, and I would like to make one quick point and then go back to see if any folks have departing comments. One thing that the American people are also pretty tired of is all of these bureaucracies. I know when I went around in August, and I think a lot of my colleagues did, too, we brought this chart around to show the American people. This is a diagram of the House version of this bill. You can see all of these new bureaucracies and all of these new agencies, and somehow this is going to simplify health care for Americans? This is going to make it better for Americans? What we do know is hidden in this is a czar that is given very broad powers that is going to be able to determine what kind of policy you and I get to have. That concerns me that the Federal Government is going to be picking and choosing the kinds of coverages that are going to be offered to the American people instead of the American people being able to pick and choose the things that they think are coverages that they need. So I think when you look at the cost, when you look at the complexity of this, it is no wonder the American people are asking the Speaker of the House and they are asking the President to keep their promise about transparency here because they are very concerned about this. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I think he probably showed this chart to his folks back home, too. What was their reaction?

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman. And I think he makes a great point. And I think one of the things that is the center of all of this is, you know, the administration is talking about jobs. I thought it was interesting today that they are going to quit tracking jobs tied to the stimulus plan because you know what, the stimulus plan hadn't been creating any jobs. This health care plan is going to stimulate, it is going to stimulate a bunch of new hires in Washington, D.C., and not across the heartland of America, because they are going to have to put people in place here to fill all these positions. And they are going to be shuffling paper, and they are going to be asking hospitals and doctors and health care providers to jump through all of these hoops so that they can justify their jobs. I think the American people want to create jobs out there in States like Ohio and Texas. So, you know, the job creation, unfortunately, is moving in the wrong direction if you are creating jobs in Washington, D.C. we need to be creating jobs in the heartland of America. I want to yield some additional time to my friend from Ohio.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman. And I thank my colleagues for entering into this very important discussion so that the American people can have a little light shined on a very important issue.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I would now like to yield some time to another one of our colleagues who has joined us here, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman, and I yield to the other gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman, and the gentleman brings up a very important point. On top of this being a very expensive bill and the fact that we are going to be spending money that we actually don't have, when I look at this chart, I think about my new grandson, Miles, and I think about my two grandsons, Nathan and Noah, and I think about what kind of legacy, what kind of future are we leaving these young people, the next generation, that by 2012 we are talking about a $16.7 trillion debt in this country. And as the gentleman said, by 2020 we are talking about $20 trillion. When I was back in the district, and maybe you all have used this analogy, but for people to get their arms around what is a trillion, if you counted to a trillion, it would take you 19,000 years to count to a trillion. We are talking some serious money here. So I thank the gentleman for bringing up those important points. This is all intertwined. We are talking about jobs and the impact of health care on patients' rights and also small businesses, but we are really talking about the impact on an entire Nation of, one, turning health care over to the government; and, secondly, continuing down this road of borrowing and spending money that we don't have and charging it to future generations. I know each Member here on the floor tonight has this voting card, and right now it is a credit card and it has a huge credit limit on it. What I think many in the Chamber with me tonight want to do is turn this into a debit card where we are spending money that we actually have instead of borrowing from our children and grandchildren.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, we are clearly in a technical revolution in our country. People now have more information available to them than literally at any other time in probably the history of our country. They know more about what is going on in their government than they ever have before. I think that is one of the reasons we are seeing people all across America rise up and start to make such bold statements and attending these TEA parties and attending these Members that are having meetings in their districts, and they are coming in record numbers. Back this August, I had an opportunity to have a number of town hall meetings in my district, and thousands of people came to voice their opposition to what they think is happening to their country, and particularly in opposition to this health care bill. Every morning, Americans wake up and follow with deep interest public policy issues that we are sent here to solve, and many people watch C- SPAN. I know that when I am back in the district, many people will say, Congressman, I saw you on C-SPAN. In fact, recently I had a conversation with one of my constituents who lives over in Muleshoe, Texas. She was calling to express her great concern about what is going on to her country, these huge deficits, trillions of dollars of spending money that we don't have, the government taking over the health care, and she was concerned about what is going on. What I learned, as she spoke more and more, she knew a lot about the issues that are facing our country, and she said she picked up a lot of that by watching C-SPAN. A lot of the viewers that call in to C-SPAN on a daily basis, they'll voice their disappointment or concerns about what is going on in their country, and they'll say, And thank God for C-SPAN. C-SPAN is kind of the watchdog, the eyes and ears, the vehicle that enables millions of Americans to see what we are up to here in Washington, D.C. Every day, people can view Congress raising their taxes, decreasing their freedoms, forcing business owners to pay more fines. All of this, thanks to C-SPAN, it is here for millions of Americans to see. Except, that is not going to be the case for health care reform in our country. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the majority plans to negotiate the final thousand-page health care bill without C-SPAN cameras present. President Obama promised when he was running for President that he was going to change Washington. He vowed, at least eight times, that the American people would get to see the negotiations of the health care bill on C-SPAN. Speaker Pelosi promised that the Democratic-led Congress would be the most transparent Congress in history. She went on to say that the work on the health care bill will be displayed transparently, while simultaneously, unapologetically, denying C-SPAN cameras access to capture the ongoing negotiations. In fact, those negotiations have been going on somewhere in this building. None of us, very few of us know where, and very few people are in the room making decisions that are going to impact the American people, not for this generation, but generations to come. All of this talk about transparency and openness, yet nobody knows who is actually in the room and actually what is happening. But we do know what happened when they went into the room, for example, in the Senate and other places: Deals were cut. And I think one of the problems that this majority has and this White House has is they have got a health care bill that is so unpopular that they have to meet in secret to talk about it so that they can cut deals so they can get enough votes to pass it. Wouldn't it be nice if the American people could experience some of that transparency that the Speaker and the President of the United States promised the American people, that they could be able to see the negotiations. I had the opportunity to experience what is positive about having these negotiations in a public setting when we did the farm bill a couple of years ago. We sat down at a table. We had Republicans and we had Democrats. The cameras were on. The discussions were frank, they were honest, they were open, and in the end, democracy took its place and a bill was crafted and it was passed by the House and the Senate. I don't understand why we can't have that same transparency and openness when we are talking about people's health care. Probably one of the most important things to many Americans is the ability for them to have some control over their health care. We have now a bill that is talking about taking over the government and government taking over the health care of our country, yet we are negotiating and debating this bill in the darkness of some room somewhere in the Capitol, and who knows where. Let's turn the lights on to this debate. Let's turn the lights on in that room. Let's turn the lights on so that the American people can see what is going on as these decisions are being made about their health care. It is too important. Now, the Democrats are going to say, Yeah, but when the Republicans were in charge, that is the way they did things. Well, that sounds like kind of a schoolyard taunting contest. But the fact is, that is not the truth. I want you to remember these dates: July 15, 2003, September 9, 2003, November 20, 2003. And you say, Well, what happened then? One of the good things about C-SPAN is they have a great library of American policy and democracy in action. In fact, it is probably one of the most extensive ones in the world, and people can come and research and see actually what did happen on the floor of the House on a particular day. And what happened on that day was that Members of Congress met to resolve their differences between the House and the Senate version of the Medicare reform legislation that provided medical prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients. A very important piece of legislation, one that was not without some controversy. The House passed a version, the Senate passed a version, and then, in the light of day, these two versions were negotiated on these days. The American people got to see the discussions that went on and got to see this bill being crafted that eventually became law. If the Democrats weren't engaging in these backroom deal-making deals, I think they wouldn't mind the lights being turned on. But the problem is that they are cutting deals. And the reason they are having to cut deals is because they are trying to pass a piece of legislation that the American people don't embrace. Many of us agree that health care needs to be reformed. And my colleagues on my side of the aisle, Republicans, conservatives, have been offering some commonsense ideas that could reform the current system without turning over health care to the government, without limiting patients' rights, and bringing more transparency and making health care more affordable and available and accessible to the American people. If the President and the Speaker and the congressional leaders are serious about this new era of openness and transparency, then why, Mr. Speaker, why, Mr. President, why aren't the lights on and why aren't the cameras in the rooms so that the American people can see what is going on in their country? I believe they deserve to know. This is a very important issue to the American people, and I hope that the Speaker and the President of the United States will keep their word and allow the lights to be turned on for this important issue. It is now my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. The interesting thing, again, about this not being done in the daylight is now we're hearing that the unions have gone over and sat down and cut a deal that if the Cadillac insurance plan was negotiated by labor contract, they're going to be exempted. So the question is that that burden then is going to be transferred more and more and more to families that didn't have a health care plan negotiated by a union. Again, that's the reason, I think, as the gentleman stated, we need to be doing this in the light of day, because the American people need to see what is going on here. And, quite honestly, what is going on isn't necessarily in everybody's best interest. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, I thank the gentleman. One of the things the gentleman brought up, I think the American taxpayers didn't get the benefit, as someone who, I think you said, someone with over 30 years as a health care professional and, as you know, in the Congress we have, particularly on our side, we have a number of physicians that have worked in health care, have dealt with Medicaid and dealt with Medicare, have seen the private payment system, all of the existing systems, and bring a huge amount of knowledge to this process, but unfortunately the American people didn't get the benefit from their knowledge, your knowledge. And, quite honestly, it's a shame. As you said, you have 660,000 customers. Every Member of Congress has about 660,000 people that are looking to them to come up here and have serious discussion, serious debate, and work on things that are good for the American people. It's not good for the American people when very few people sit down and make a decision about something that's going to impact not only my 660,000 people, but yours and the other gentleman from Ohio. This is serious policy. It's now my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, I thank the gentleman for pointing out the taxes that are in this bill. I think the bad news is that they're going to have to be higher tax because they are disguising, as you know, what this bill actually costs. Now the stated cost that the Speaker of the House says is this bill costs $891 billion. But if you add the mandated cost of the employer-mandating tax, it's another $135 billion. And if you add the cost of individual mandate tax for individuals that are going to be penalized under this plan, it's another $33 billion. So the total cost, the CBO score is $1.06 billion. You don't hear the Speaker or the leadership or the President talking about this number. Now the other piece is that in the House bill, there is no provision for what is being called the ``doc fix.'' Today we have reimbursement levels that are being projected to be reduced by a substantial level, which is going to cause more and more doctors not to see Medicare and Medicaid patients. So this leadership team has promised and made a deal with the docs that they will bring a separate bill. They don't want to bring it in this one because, why? It cost $209 billion. So now instead of $1.06, you have got a nearly a $1.2 trillion bill. Now the other piece is that Medicaid is being transferred to--part of this cost is going to be Medicaid which is going to be transferred to States, unless you're from Nebraska. What is the cost of that? That's $34 billion. Now here is the real sleeper. I hope that the American people are watching C-SPAN and the like because the lights are on here, and the lights are on this chart. And guess what, this little bill collects taxes that the gentleman was talking about for 10 years, but it only has expenses for 7 years. Now think about all of the businesses and families all across America that if you could collect 10 years' worth of salary but you only had to pay 7 years' worth of expenses, that's like the first 3 years you don't have to make your house payment, you don't have to buy your gasoline, you don't have to make your car payment. You just get your paycheck. Nothing taken out of it, no Social Security, no withholding. What a great deal that would be. Well, that's the way this bill has been put together in order to disguise the real cost of this. So once the 3-year period passes, then on an annualized basis, this bill costs another $727 billion more than what is being represented to the American people. So what does that total? $2.1 trillion. So a bill that this leadership says is $891 billion--it's not $891 billion. It's $2.1 trillion. And at a time in which, as the gentleman was talking about, small businesses are struggling to keep their doors open--in my district--and I think the gentleman's district as well--small businesses play a huge part in creating jobs. Who is going to pay this $2.1 trillion? Because the taxes that they're talking about collecting only pay for a bill that costs $891 billion, but this bill costs $2.1 trillion. Now here's the other thing that people have looked at: this bill mandates, as both of my friends know, mandates that every American have health insurance. And in fact, if you don't, there is a penalty for it. So one of the things, people say that if the government is requiring to you do something to pay for health care or to have health care, and there is a penalty for doing it, it becomes a tax or a cost. Some people who have kind of calculated what that means for the economy, GDP and overall, said maybe that's a $4 trillion number. So possibly what we are looking at, if we shed light on this bill, as we should, that really the impact of this is that it's a $6 trillion piece of legislation. Now I don't know about you, but I think the American people think that whether it's $2 trillion or $6 trillion or even $891 billion that we should have had more debate than we did on this bill. As my colleagues will remember on the day that we passed this bill, very little debate was--I think one amendment--there was one amendment to a $2 trillion--to a $6 trillion bill was allowed. These are the kinds of things that cause me to say, Mr. President, we have to hit the pause button here because we're talking about something that impacts families all across America. We have some numbers here that are big. We are now spending money that we don't have. Every dollar that the government spends, they have to go out and borrow nearly 40 cents of that from people, like in China and Japan; and it is not a sustainable thing. Yet now we're talking about more taxes and I think potentially bigger deficits because we've not had good discussions on this bill. Now I will yield some additional time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania to reflect on these important issues again.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, I was absent from votes on December 14, 2009 due to a medical appointment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 969 and ``yea'' on rollcall 970.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chairman, the Republican alternative actually brings real reform to the regulatory process and not big government. The first thing that the Republican alternative does is it ends bailouts. The American people are tired of bailouts; and particularly they are tired of bailouts when they come at their expense. The other thing that the Republican substitute does is it gets the government out of picking winners and losers. If companies make bad decisions, they fail. If they make good decisions, they succeed. The other part of the Republican plan is we say, you know what, if you are taking risky behavior, you are involved in businesses that cause more risk to the system, you have to have more capital. The other thing that the Republican plan does is it actually protects consumers and doesn't limit their choices. I think that is the big difference in this piece of legislation; this piece of legislation that the Democrats want to do, they want somebody else to make the choices for you. They have a credit czar, and that credit czar is going to tell you what kind of car loan, what kinds of student loan, and what kind of house loan you can get. I have said all along that I think the American people have enough sense to make their own decisions. In fact, I just recently came back from Afghanistan where we have young men and women who are deployed, and they are over there trying to protect the American people's ability to make their own choices. I hope they are not going to be disappointed when they find out that back here in the good old U.S. of A., where they have been defending our freedom and liberty, we are over here trying to pass legislation that will limit their choices, limit their choices to be able to have the kind of house loan or car loan or student loan. Or maybe they want to come back from serving this great country and this great Nation after their distinguished service, they want a small business loan, only to find out that the United States Congress is limiting the ability of banks and credit unions to provide new business loans for these men and women. I don't think that is what they are fighting for. I urge Members to vote for the Republican substitute and vote against the underlying bill.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. There are a number of provisions in the manager's amendment that make this bill less bad. And really, we've come a long way from the bill that was originally introduced to the one that's on the floor now. We went through a very lengthy markup process. In many cases, sometimes during those markups we were able to make the bill better. In this manager's amendment, there are some changes that in fact do make this bill a little less egregious to me. But the problem is, fundamentally, the bill still does what it originally started out to do, and that is to perpetuate bailouts in this country. One of the things that my colleagues and I have said from the very beginning is the American people are tired of bailouts. Unfortunately, this bill perpetuates bailouts in this country. We continue to reward bad behavior and punish good behavior, and this bill perpetuates that. One of the things that also concerns me about this bill is that even with some improvements, it still becomes a job killer. For example, one of the provisions in this bill would give secured creditors a haircut. In other words, here is somebody that took collateral to make a loan, thought they were securitized, thought they were collateralized, and now at the end, arbitrarily they can be given a 20 percent haircut for their collateral. That is going to cause huge implications in the credit markets because these people, a small businessman, is going out to borrow money for his plant or equipment or other things, lenders making what they think are secured loans, and all of a sudden the lender finds himself at some point in time where their security is going to be shared with someone else. The other piece of this is that this bill does something that I feel very strongly about, and that is, it limits the choices for consumers. I still believe that the American people are pretty smart people. I think it's their money, it's their credit, and they ought to have a lot more to say about the types of credit, the types of loans that they take out. They don't need the Federal Government telling them that this is the kind of loan we think is appropriate for you, this is the kind of student loan you should use to send your child to college, or this is the kind of car loan you should use. Or small businessman--this is the loan that we give small businesses, take it or leave it. The other part of it is that this bill does something that I think is very egregious, and I think the American people ought to be outraged about. Here we are, Secretary Geithner gave the Democrats an early Christmas present. He said, you know what? That slush fund that we've got, we're going to keep it until next October. Man, a day doesn't go by and here we go, we're going to put our hand in the cookie jar here. In this bill, $4 billion out of the TARP money that was not represented to be used for these kinds of purposes, it was an emergency to stabilize the markets, but we're going to put our hand in the cookie jar and take $4 billion. By the way, it's $4 billion we didn't have to begin with; we had to go borrow that $4 billion. Instead of taking the TARP money, the Treasury Secretary recently told us, he said, I think the financial markets are basically stabilized. This is a bad bill, we should defeat it.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, Treasury Secretary Geithner gave my colleagues, the Democrats on the other side of the aisle, a Christmas present yesterday in that he extended their revolving slush fund until October of next year--again, going down the road of rewarding bad behavior and punishing good behavior. The American people were deceived from the very beginning on this--this TARP money, this revolving slush fund as it has evolved into--because they were told it was just for emergency purposes. Now we are told that, even by the Secretary and the President, that maybe the financial emergency is over. Well, if it's over, we ought to be giving that money back to the American people or, unfortunately, some of that money was borrowed, and we are borrowing the money from the Chinese. But, no, we are going to put that money back into a slush fund and now we are going to use it for whatever purposes our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decide to do with it. Let me tell you, they are very good at it. If you want somebody to teach you how to spend, they can teach you how to spend. Unfortunately, Mr. President, and to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we are spending money that we don't have. We are borrowing all of this money. Here we are today talking about now making a permanent slush fund, a permanent TARP fund, over $150 billion. The American people are tired of the bailouts. They are tired of making their own mortgage payment and then they are being asked to make their neighbor's house payment. You know what the American people are doing is they are getting their own financial household in order. But the other part of this bill that bothers me, and it should bother the American people, is we are going to have this new czar or czarina that is going to be able to tell you what kinds of financial products that are appropriate for you. Maybe there is only a certain kind of mortgage that you should have or a certain kind of car loan you should have, certain kind of student loan that you should have when you are trying to send your kids to college. But the big concern I have is it's going to hurt the credit, limit the credit for small businesses across this country, the people that create the most jobs in this country and have the ability to bring us out of this economic slump. Yet now we are going to be able to put this big regulatory umbrella over them. Defeat this bill. It's a bad bill.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman. I think I want to go back to what really is at stake here and that's choices for the people that borrow money in this country. Back in the fall of last year and in the spring of this year, we were working on legislation that the other side brought forward for credit cards, and everybody has got a credit card story that they have had a bad experience. We passed this big credit card bill. When we were talking and debating that bill on this very floor, we told the American people be careful here, because what they are saying is they don't trust you to make your own choices, and they are going to tinker with the credit card industry. We said, you know what's going to happen? Interest rates are going to go up. Credit limits are going to go down, payments are going to go up. And what happened? Rates went up, credit limits went down, and payments went up. Who did that affect? Well, it affected families. More importantly, we said it's going to hurt small businesses because a number of small businesses across this country use credit cards to help with their cash-flow needs of their company. Now we are here tonight talking about the rest of the credit market. What's going to happen here, one of the gentlemen, several gentlemen have brought up predatory lending. Well, let me talk about a predatory loan. How about this young businessman that needs to buy another truck and some tools for his plumbing company, and he goes to his banker and he says, you know what, I need an interest-only loan for 12 months until I get my business up and going and I get my new employee generating the revenue, and then I want to convert over to another payment plan at the end of 12 months. The banker says, well, I would love to do that; I have done that for you in the past. But you know what, we have got this new czar, or czarina, who is in charge of determining what kinds of financial products I can offer, so I can't do that. So what happens? That plumber can't expand, can't buy another truck, can't hire another employee. Those are the consequences of this. Where we are headed in this is that we are going to let the Federal Government tell you, because you are not smart enough, according to my colleagues on the other side, to determine what kind of mortgage is appropriate for your family; that you are not smart enough to determine what kind of car loan is appropriate; what kind of student loan is appropriate for you and your family as you are trying to send your daughter or your son to school; that the overdraft privileges that your bank has been extending to you in the past, but because of these new regulations and the interference of government, you may not be extended those, or those charges may go up. How about that person that wants to experience the American Dream and wants to go start their own business and needs a specialized financing package to be able to get that business off the ground and so initially has a small amount of capital. The banker is going to take a larger risk, and so he is going to have to price the cost of that loan higher, and he is reluctant to do that because he might be making a predatory loan according to this new czar, this new agency that's going to determine what kind of financial products the American people get to have access to in the future. You know what, Madam Chairman, I still have faith in the American people because this Nation wasn't built because of its government. This Nation was built because of its people, people that took risks and chances and worked hard and went out and did different things in different ways and made things happen, and they didn't conform to what was the standard. You see, when we start standardizing everything, we begin to limit the potential for success, and we limit failure, and there is no reward for those who do the extra and do special. That's not what this Nation was built on. I just recently over the weekend came back from Afghanistan, where our young men and women are doing remarkable things in the name of security, peace, and liberty for our country. You would have thought they would want to talk about, you know, thank you for the President's commitment to additional troops; but this sergeant came up to me as I was about to walk out and go get on a plane. He said, Congressman, you know what really scares me? It's not these Afghani Taliban people. What really scares me is what you all are doing to our country. Every time I turn around you are spending money we don't have. The government is getting into the car business. The government is buying banks. The government is limiting my choices. You are leaving a legacy, and I am over here fighting for a country. Quite honestly, I look back home and I am not sure the Congress is not destroying our country by taking away the liberties and the freedoms that I am fighting for. That's the reason tonight and tomorrow, whenever we vote on this, we need to defeat this so that we can preserve liberty and freedom for this country and trust the American people because the American people are smart enough to make their own decisions.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman. Sometimes we think that government's role is to save the world. When I was in small business, there was a joke: People would say, I'm from the government, I'm here to help you. And you know, what I hear from small business men and women all across the country right now is, Please don't help us anymore. Why are they saying that? Because over the years, Congress has amassed a huge amount of regulations, and those regulations have been put on the backs of businesses all across our country. Today, we are here to put another huge mountain on top of the financial markets, the capital markets, the very markets that our small businesses depend on for capital, in the name of trying to help them. And I will tell you tonight we're going to hurt them. We are going to cause people to lose their jobs because of this bill. In fact, a recent study at the University of Chicago and George Mason University estimated that passing this piece of legislation would reduce job growth by 4.3 percent. And you say, well, how can a consumer protection, how can a regulatory bill hurt small businesses, how can it cause job losses? Well, let's look at some of the predictions in here. We are going to have this new regulator that is going to determine what kind of financial products banks and people that provide loans can hand out. So if I need a specialized loan that maybe has a little bit different terms than normal, my lender is concerned that the regulator is going to look at that loan and say, you know what, you shouldn't be making those kinds of loans. At a time when the President of the United States is even trying to look and wait to find some jobs--and we are all looking for all of those jobs that supposedly the stimulus package created, but the truth of the matter is this will kill jobs. It will also hurt small businesses' ability to get capital. Right now, we already hear that banks across the country are a little reluctant to loan money. Why are they reluctant to loan money? Because the regulators are clamping down on them. And now we're going to say to the regulators, you know what? You didn't clamp down hard enough, you didn't regulate enough, so we're going to give you some new marching orders and put this new massive legislation in place. And everybody thinks that that is going to free up credit for small businesses to create jobs in America? It's not going to do that. The concern I have is that if we continue down this road of regulation in the financial markets, we are going to begin to limit the choices for these banks to provide financial products. The other thing that this bill does is it picks winners and losers again. Now, the distinguished chairman of the committee, who I have great respect for, says the taxpayers' money isn't involved in here. Maybe it's not tax money, but the consumers are going to pay for these bailouts. If you have an assessment, and you assess an entity for bailing out its competitor--and how that makes sense, I don't know--who do you think is going to pay the additional cost that that company is going to have to pay the assessment? The consumer is. So what is this going to do to small businesses? It's going to raise the cost of capital. In fact, there is an estimate out there that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and others, say this will raise borrowing costs almost 1.5 percent for people and small businesses and consumers. Now, how does that help the economy? It doesn't help the economy; in fact, it puts a weight on the economy and, again, is going to cause jobs to be lost in this country. So the question is, why are we here tonight? Why are we debating this bill? It's got a fancy title that says it's going to protect consumers, and it's going to punish Wall Street. Well, really, the issue is it doesn't punish Wall Street, because if you're a big company, this bill says we've got a way to prop you up because we're going to get the Federal Reserve to imply that you are too big to fail, picking winners and losers. And then that gives an unfair competitive advantage to these banks and other entities that aren't on the ``too big to fail'' list. So I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation.