[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 4, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H1017-H1024]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       AMERICA'S FINANCIAL CRISIS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be able to join with some 
of my colleagues here tonight. And we're going to be talking about a 
subject that is, I believe, near and dear to many people's hearts, or 
at least of concern to many people. And I suppose one way to introduce 
this subject would be to take a look at something that has been in the 
news now for 6 and 7 years, and that would be the subject of how much 
money we have spent in the war in Iraq.
  Many people were observing that we were spending way too much money, 
that the budget was out of balance and we are just wasting money over 
in Iraq and in Afghanistan. And yet ironically, in the very first month 
of this new administration and this new Congress, we spent more money 
in that first month than what we spent in 2 years in the two different 
wars for 6 and 7 years added together. If you add all of the money 
spent in Iraq, all of the money spent in Afghanistan and add it all 
together, it is less than what we spent in the first couple of months 
of Congress this year.
  Now, how do we get to that point? What brought this about? If you 
want to try to take a look at how much money does that mean, that says 
that we spent in the first month more money than the entire tax revenue 
that we're planning to collect for the year 2008. It would be as if you 
had your own family budget, and in January you spent all of your income 
for the year. You have got 11 very lean months to take a look at.
  So how is it that we got to this point? That is what we are going to 
be talking about. We're going to have a nice kind of roundtable 
discussion with many people from different States. And so I want to 
back up just a little bit and take a look at how did we get to this 
point that we have the economy in the condition that it's in?
  Well, the story goes back quite a ways. It goes back to the Carter 
years. People found that as people were trying to get mortgages, 
particularly in certain areas of economically disadvantaged areas in 
various cities, that it was hard for them to get home loans. And so 
they put together the Community Reinvestment Act. And in a sense, what 
it was saying to banks is, you have got to take a few of your loans and 
loan them to people who it's not clear that they will be able to pay it 
back, because somehow or another people everywhere need to have a 
chance to buy a home and to own a home.
  Well, that idea was then followed up with the creation of a couple of 
quasi-governmental but also quasi-private organizations that were 
little known at the time called Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And those 
organizations were in the same business of trying to help people that 
were sort of middle-income buyers or lower-income buyers to be able to 
buy a house. And so they helped to write loans and underwrite loans. 
The theory was, at least implicit, that the government IOU was behind 
the things that Freddie and Fannie took care of.
  Then as we moved along further, we moved up to the Clinton era. 
Toward the end of Clinton's days, what he did was increased the 
percentage of the loans that Freddie and Fannie had to make and 
increased the percentage of them that were very risky loans. In other 
words, essentially what he was saying was that the government is 
forcing Freddie and Fannie to make loans and that we know an awful lot 
of them are not going to be paid. And of course when you start to 
mandate that quasi-governmental groups are going to make bad loans, 
then pretty soon you're going to have trouble.
  Well, this coincided then, as we move along a couple further years, 
to the era when Alan Greenspan drops the interest rates extremely low 
because the economy is tanking. In 2000, Greenspan started dropping the 
interest rates. And then you create this idea of, well, hey, if we have 
got all of this money at tremendously low interest rates, where are you 
going to park it? Well, let's park it in real estate because real 
estate always goes up. You can't make a mistake in real estate.

[[Page H1018]]

  In my first early days here at Congress, boy, did I feel stupid that 
I hadn't bought a great big multimillion-dollar house, because if I 
could have just afforded the interest payments on it for 4 years, it 
would have doubled in value between 2000 and 2004 or 2005. Of course, I 
would have to have been smart enough to buy it in 2000 and smart enough 
to sell it by 2005.
  Well, as everybody knows, that old bubble popped. And increasingly 
all of these loans that were being made started in the process of 
defaulting. And it was not just people in economically disadvantaged 
areas that were making these loans. No. Wall Street got into the deal. 
And so did the speculators. And so what started to happen was you had 
people going out there and selling all of these loans. The local banks 
went through the Community Reinvestment Act and would make the loans. 
But as soon as they made the loan, they turned it right on over to 
Fannie and Freddie, assuming that if anything goes wrong, the Federal 
Government is going to bail them out.
  Then you get to the point where people are running around who are 
mortgage brokers. And they don't care what kind of job you have. If you 
want to borrow a half a million bucks, fine, because they simply write 
the loan, make the commission on the loan, and the loan is passed on 
largely to Freddie and Fannie.
  In the meantime, Wall Street was taking all of these loans, packaging 
them together and slicing and dicing them and selling them all over the 
world and making a great deal of money in the process as the housing 
bubble was going up and up. Everything looked pretty good.
  And then you had the rating agencies, such as Standard & Poor's or 
the other one would be Moody's. They were all giving these things 
Triple A ratings. This is good stuff. Everybody around the world, buy 
all of these loans that are made to people who we know really don't 
have the ability to pay these loans.
  And so now you get this situation where you're spiraling upward and 
upward. The bubble is about to pop. Did anybody see it coming? Well, 
the answer is, yes, as a matter of fact they did. President Bush saw it 
coming. He saw it coming in 2003. And he approached the legislature. He 
said, I have got to have the legislative authority to rein Freddie and 
Fannie in because these guys are going crazy making these loans, and 
it's going to mess the whole economy up.
  And so Congress, while we were in the majority in 2004, we passed a 
bill that allowed the President to have the authority to regulate 
Freddie and Fannie to stop this runaway train. It went to the Senate, 
and it was killed by the Democrats.
  Now let's take a look at what appeared in the New York Times, not 
exactly a right-wing oracle, about that very time, September 11, 2003. 
And this is part of the quote, September 11, 2003, New York Times, 
``These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any 
kind of financial crisis.'' Who would say that? Representative Barney 
Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services 
Committee. ``The more people exaggerate these problems, the more 
pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of 
affordable housing.''
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. AKIN. I would yield to the gentleman from Georgia who is quite an 
authority on this subject. Thank you for joining us tonight, gentleman.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Akin, I just appreciate your yielding time. 
I would like to clarify something you said here just for my own 
personal edification and I hope the edification of the people who are 
watching tonight. You said just a few moments ago that the President of 
the United States asked for more regulatory authority over Freddie and 
Fannie. Is that correct?
  Mr. AKIN. That's correct. That was 2003 in the New York Times, 
September 11, the President sees this coming, he says that we've got to 
regulate them more.
  I'm reclaiming my time. People are saying that this is a failure of 
free enterprise. This has nothing to do with the failure of free 
enterprise. This is a failure of socialism.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. That is what I wanted to clarify, if you don't 
mind yielding back a second. But the thing is, the President of the 
United States, President Bush, who I have not always been in agreement 
with on many things, but he was asking to regulate these GSEs, 
government-sponsored enterprises, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And it 
was actually Freddie and Fannie, along with the Community Reinvestment 
Act, plus the low interest rates that were out there so that these 
subprime loans could be made. This is what created our housing bubble 
that just rose so quickly and then burst so rapidly that the housing 
prices went down. If I remember correctly, the Republicans in the 
House, we also, in fact, passed a bill. Is that not correct?
  Mr. AKIN. That's correct. We passed a bill. Reclaiming my time, we 
did pass a bill. And this is something that we saw as a problem. But as 
you will recall, the way that the Senate body works, while we sent 
legislation over to them, this article goes on to say the Democrats 
opposed it. And we did have the 60 votes to get it passed. So nothing 
was done. And perhaps if there is any blame that needs to be made on 
the economy being in the condition it's in, it really rests with the 
U.S. Congress, with the House and the Senate.
  Now these other rating agencies that said that you're going to give a 
Triple A rating to this trash, certainly they ought to have to be 
accountable as well. And certainly Wall Street was knowing that they 
were selling trash and rating it Triple A and selling it all over the 
world. It wasn't that they hadn't done some things wrong, but to allow 
that to happen, first of all, the Congress was out to lunch.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. But it was not the free enterprise system. It 
was not deregulation. It was not anything except for the Democrats here 
in Congress that blocked regulation. And it was, actually, there were 
programs that were established by Congress. If I remember correctly, 
the Carter administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act 
initially. And under the Clinton administration it was markedly 
expanded to force banks to make these loans where people couldn't pay. 
Is that not correct?
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, my understanding was what Clinton did 
was not so much in the Community Reinvestment Act, although that was 
done with ACORN and all, but more particularly he specifically required 
that Fannie and Freddie make loans that essentially we knew weren't 
going to be any good. I yield.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I appreciate that. So, the Community 
Reinvestment Act, and that is where I was going, and I appreciate your 
mentioning that, and ACORN became a bunch of thugs using extortion. 
That is what I hear from my bankers at home in Georgia, that ACORN 
folks would come in and threaten them because they couldn't expand 
their services and they couldn't put in ATM machines unless they would 
make these bad loans. And that is what created this whole financial 
debacle. And the blame, though, lies right at the feet of the people 
who are pushing this stimulus package saying it was free enterprise.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Reclaiming my time, gentlemen. I think you struck 
something that strikes me as being a tremendous irony. The people who 
created the problem now are charged with fixing it. And that leaves us 
in kind of an interesting--and I think that the reason that I wanted to 
take a little bit of time with you, gentlemen, and knowing that you 
know this subject, the reason I want to take time on it is because 
sometimes people want to say, oh, we don't want to go witch-hunting or 
go looking at who we are going to blame. But on the other hand, if we 
don't understand how we got into the problem, we will end up doing the 
same dumb thing over again. And that is my concern.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Absolutely. If the gentleman will yield, I'm a 
physician, as the gentleman knows. And in medical practice we look at 
problems and we try to find solutions to those problems. In fact, it is 
quite different from what lawyers do. Lawyers generally just argue 
problems. We try to fix problems. We try to find solutions to those 
problems. And so we look at all the symptoms. We look at the causative 
factors that come to bear in any disease entity.

[[Page H1019]]

  Now we've got a horrible disease problem of a poor economy. The 
American people are hurting, hurting terribly. And we're right now in a 
debate about a bill that the House passed last week, the Senate is 
taking it up now. But there is in my opinion a tremendous amount of 
blindness by our colleagues, particularly on the other side, about what 
are the causation factors of the housing burst that has really created 
this economic problem that we have in this Nation.

                              {time}  1745

  And I commend the gentleman for bringing this up because that 
statement that the New York Times put in place, I think, is very 
indicative of what's going on now. And I heard the same people who were 
arguing back in 2003 and earlier against regulating Fannie and Freddie, 
those same people, when we were talking about the TARP funds, the Wall 
Street bailout, kept making a case that we need to make more of these 
loans in the name of affordable housing, make those loans to people who 
cannot afford to pay them.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, you know, gentlemen, somehow or other 
people want to try and package this as compassionate. I'm trying to 
think of people such as myself or other people in my district and what 
happens if you put someone into a house, and maybe they can afford a 
$250,000 house, and you put them in a $400,000 house, and all of a 
sudden, every month they've got that mortgage payment coming due; and 
the financial pressure, it starts to drive the husband and wife apart 
and make the children's lives hell as eventually they end up on a 
street side with their sofa on the sidewalk because they can't afford 
it. How is that compassionate? I don't understand.
  But gentleman, I note that we have some other distinguished guests 
here. Could we come back to you in just a minute?
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Well, I have to leave in a second.
  Mr. AKIN. I will yield.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I'd like to tell you and the American public a 
story if you yield just another minute or two.
  Mr. AKIN. I yield.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Okay. Thank you. I've got a friend who's in the 
timber land business. He buys and sells timber land. And he was telling 
me a story during this whole period of time when real estate prices 
were going up. He had a piece of property in my district on the market 
for $1.3 million. A gentleman came in and said, I want to buy your 
land. My buddy said fine. Here's the contract. The buyer signed it. 
Went to closing.
  My good friend, when he got to closing, of course, got his check for 
the $1.3 million. But he found out because of the problems with the 
banking industry making these sub prime low doc, no doc, low 
documentation, no documentation loans, that the buyer actually borrowed 
$1.7 million for a $1.3 million piece of property. So he put $400,000 
cash money in his pocket.
  Now, if the property went up to $2 million or 2.1 or $2 million then 
the bank would be happy. Both the buyer, and the seller in this deal 
would have been happy, and everybody would have been fine.
  But my friend found out that the buyer had no job. He had no assets. 
He had no way to pay for this loan for $1.7 million.
  Mr. AKIN. So reclaiming my time, you're just giving an example of 
this absolutely crazy runaway policy that we have. It's basically a 
free money, you don't have any job, you don't have any money, borrow 
whatever you want and speculate and hope things work out right.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Well, that's the point I was trying to make if 
the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. AKIN. I yield.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make is 
that this whole banking industry debacle was crazy and it was set up by 
policy that Congress established, and Republicans tried to do something 
about it because we, as the Republican Party, people here in the House, 
members of the Banking Committee in the Senate, Financial Services over 
here on the House side, realized that this was a disaster in the making 
and they tried to do something about it. And every effort that we did 
was blocked by the Democrats, who, right now, today want to force down 
the throat of the American people this stimulus bill that, in reality, 
is nothing, nothing but a steam roller of socialism that's being shoved 
down the throat of the American public and it's going to strangle to 
death the American economy, as well as the American people.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, gentleman, we are going to get to that 
very point that you're making, and I thank you so much, Congressman 
Broun from Georgia. And I sometimes think of it as doctor, but now 
you're congressman. You've got a couple of different hats. I appreciate 
your just straightforward approach. This is what we're talking about 
that's hurting a whole lot of very small, very average people. And the 
thing that really makes me sick about it is we saw the thing coming, 
and not only has the American economy got a cold, we've given pneumonia 
to the rest of the world, and there are people starving because of 
these very policies.
  And somehow, putting somebody in a house that they can't afford, I 
don't see how there's anything compassionate about that.
  But we are joined by another doctor from the great State of Georgia 
as well, Dr. Gingrey, but maybe we should call him Congressman Gingrey. 
I would be happy to yield to you sir.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. And I thank the gentleman from Missouri for 
yielding. And I thank my colleague from Georgia, Dr. Broun, for his 
timely and insightful comments.
  It's good to join with you this hour, Mr. Speaker, to try to shed 
some light on this issue, a terribly important issue to the American 
people when we're in these rather dire economic circumstances. But the 
big problem, of course Representative Akin and Representative Broun, 
Mr. Speaker, spent time explaining how we got into this mess. And I 
think it's very important that they did this and kind of set the stage 
for where we are today, why we're here, how we got there, what the 
problem is and basically, who's to blame. And certainly, if you do the 
math, connect the dots, it's pretty clear. I won't go back through that 
important information.
  But we're now trying to decide, Mr. Speaker, what to do about it, how 
to get out of this recession that we're in. And unfortunately, what the 
Democratic majority and what President Obama has recommended, I just 
don't think passes the smell test. I really feel that the likelihood of 
this being successful, when you look, Mr. Speaker, at the spending in 
this bill, this economic stimulus bill as it's called, where's the 
beef? I mean, the old expression--I don't see where there's anything or 
hardly anything in $825 billion that's going to do a whole lot of 
stimulating.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time just a minute. What you're doing is 
you're fast forwarding a little bit. We started by talking about how 
did we get in this mess. I was going to make just a comment. Sometimes 
people say this is as bad as the Great Depression. Certainly it's not. 
It's not as bad as what things were under Jimmy Carter when we had 
double digit unemployment and double digit inflation. But we can make 
it that bad if we work at it and do the wrong things. So that's scaling 
it.
  Now, what you're talking about is we've got a solution that's being 
proposed. It's a solution that's proposed by the Pelosi Democrat 
Congress. We saw the vote on that last week. Not a single Republican 
voted for it. But they had a proposal, and I think it's great that we 
do have a problem. We acknowledge there's a problem, and they made a 
proposal. And that's what you're talking about, Doctor, and you're 
talking about the mechanics of what they're proposing, and I think we 
need to take a look at that. And what you're saying, from what I'm 
hearing you say is, you don't think it's going to work. And I yield.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, if the gentleman will yield to me again 
and I appreciate it. He said it exactly right. It is the Pelosi 
proposal, the Democratic majority proposal, the Harry Reid proposal. 
But it's certainly not the Congressional proposal, because we 
Republicans, Mr. Speaker, are part of that mix. And as the gentleman 
from Missouri points out, we were never consulted. There was no 
essentially no markup, no regular order.

[[Page H1020]]

  And as Representative Akin says, the importance of getting it right--
you know, some people use the expression for goodness sake, don't just 
sit there, do something. Well, I happen to be a doctor too, an OB/GYN 
doctor, and I know a lot of times it's better to not just do something, 
sit there. The baby will come.
  But we're not recommending though that we do nothing, Mr. Speaker. 
We're just saying that when you've got a bill with 825, more in the 
Senate, billions of dollars in it, it needs to stimulate the economy 
for sure. And it needs to put people back to work for sure, not just 
maybe.
  And as the gentleman from Missouri said, we could make matters far 
worse than they were in the late 70s under President Jimmy Carter, and 
we could even get as bad as it was back in 1929, 30, 31, 32, so we want 
to get it right.
  And if the gentleman will bear with me just for a minute, I would 
appreciate it. I wanted to show a poster or two to just to kind of put 
the spending, the so-called stimulus, in perspective. And if my 
colleagues will look at this first poster, and the question at the top 
says, can you afford to pay for the Democratic spending bill? And 
basically, at $825 billion, the economic stimulus plan that's sailing 
through Congress would cost each American family more than $10,000 on 
average. More than $10,000. In fact $10,500.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, you're saying this is $10,000 for every 
family in America is what this thing is going to cost?
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Exactly. If the gentleman will yield further. 
Exactly that's what I'm saying. And to put that in more perspective, 
the average family, for food, clothing and health care, an expensive 
line item in the family budget, food, clothing and health care, they 
spend $10,400 and for shelter, $11,600. Fully a third of that cost is 
what we're putting on their backs.
  Listen, colleagues on both sides of the aisle, wouldn't we be better 
off just giving every family in America a check for $3,000? And we 
could probably end up doing it a whole lot cheaper than $825 billion. 
And by golly, that would work.
  So that's what we're trying to do here tonight, Mr. Speaker, is just 
point out that there's a better way of doing this. We, in the 
Republican minority, who have not been included, not been asked except 
asked to vote for this thing, no questions asked, no amendments, we do 
have a better idea. And I know as we get further into the hour tonight, 
Mr. Speaker, we'll be talking about that. And I will look forward to 
that opportunity. I will yield back to the gentleman. I know there's 
others here on the floor that would like to speak on this issue.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate, Doctor, and Congressman 
your joining us and your perspective. I think when you start talking 
about $800 billion or $1 trillion, those are such box car size numbers, 
it's a little bit tricky to put them in perspective. I think you've 
done a great job when you bring it down to the fact that the stimulus 
package that was just passed last week by the Democrats, that would be 
your medical care and your food and clothing for an average family. 
That's what that would be. That's how much it's going to cost an 
average family. Or you could say it's what it costs you to have your 
house. Those are significant numbers. I think it brings it home, and we 
really to ask ourselves what are we getting for this stimulus package?
  And with that, I note that we have a distinguished colleague of mine 
from all the way out on the West Coast, Congressman Dreier, who has 
been here a number of years and is really on top of these issues. It's 
an honor to have you joining us. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. Thanks for reminding me that I've been around a long 
time. I appreciate that very much.
  Let me, Mr. Speaker, express my appreciation to my very good friend 
from St. Louis for taking this time to talk about what obviously is 
priority number one for working families all across this country, and 
that is survival; survival, because we all know how difficult it is out 
there. We're regularly hearing from our constituents that they are 
losing their homes, they are having a difficult time making ends meet.
  This afternoon I had the chance to meet with some local officials 
from one of the counties that I'm privileged to represent. And in San 
Bernardino County in California, the numbers of homes that have gone 
into foreclosure, it is mind boggling to see the challenges.
  And I will tell you, when you think of a young family out there, 
working, trying to hold things together and they're losing their home 
and having a difficult time making ends meet, we all know, Democrat and 
Republican alike, that it is absolutely essential that we put into 
place government policies that will help to address those challenges.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, my friend from St. Louis just brought to my 
attention an amazing quote that his 88-year old father brought to mind 
for him since he had lived through this period of time, that being the 
Great Depression. And it's a quote from the Treasury Secretary, I 
appreciate his putting this chart up there because I actually scribbled 
it down, and I don't know if I could read my scribbling of it. But I'd 
like to share it with our colleagues.
  The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, in 1939, as we were 
tragically headed into the great World War II, and as we were, in large 
part because of the war, able to emerge from the Great Depression, had 
an amazing statement that he, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Treasury 
Secretary, at the end of the Great Depression in 1939, in his testimony 
provided before the House Ways and Means Committee. And in that, and 
Mr. Speaker, I commend this to my colleagues. He said, ``We have tried 
spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and 
it does not work. I say, after 8 years of the administration,'' that 
being the Roosevelt administration, ``we have just as much unemployment 
as when we started, and an enormous debt to boot.'' What an incredible 
statement that was made by Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Treasury 
Secretary in 1939. And the last line, Mr. Speaker, an enormous debt to 
boot, of course, brings to mind the fact that in 1939, the American 
people and financial interests in this country were financing that 
debt.

                              {time}  1800

  Today, we know that that debt is coming from all over the world, that 
it is held by peoples all over the world, and that creates another very 
unique challenge for us.
  So I would say that, as we know that our constituents are hurting, I 
believe very, very strongly that the answer to the problem of the 
families who have lost their homes and of the people who are losing 
their jobs is not to put into place a $1.1, $1.2, $1.3 trillion 
spending package. We don't know what the size of it is going to be 
because, with $1.1 trillion, if you take the $347 billion in servicing, 
that would have been an $825 billion program over the next decade. It 
is being debated on by our friends, our colleagues, in the Senate now.
  As we look at that challenge, it seems to me that people understand 
that that is not the panacea, and nowhere is that made clearer than in 
the words of the Treasury Secretary who served under the great 
President Franklin Roosevelt when he said that we have tried spending 
money, that we are spending more than we have ever spent before, and it 
does not work. I say, after 8 years of the Roosevelt administration, 
there was just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous 
debt to boot.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time for just a minute, I appreciate your 
perspective because we can stand here and talk about boxcar numbers and 
economic theory and policy, but you are bringing it down to what it has 
to do with the guy in the street, what it has to do with me.
  There is a picture that always sticks in my mind. I don't know. You 
know, sometimes you take in mental pictures, and there is a picture 
that sticks in my mind. When we get talking about these charts and 
everything, I always want to come back to this picture, and that is a 
picture of a house, and sitting right there on the sidewalk is 
somebody's sofa. I think about the young dads who have just gotten 
married and who may have a kid or two, and they are struggling, and 
they are trying to keep their heads above water, and they tell their 
wives not to buy any food, and they tell their kids not to buy any 
toys. They are still trying to pay this

[[Page H1021]]

debt off, and they keep getting worse and worse behind. Finally, they 
go out there, and that is when they end up with that sofa that's 
sitting on a sidewalk.
  That is what we are talking about with these socialistic policies. 
Here it all started with this ``give somebody something,'' and somehow 
or other, Uncle Sam and socialism are going to make it work.
  Mr. DREIER. Would my friend yield for just one moment again?
  Mr. AKIN. I would yield.
  Mr. DREIER. I will say that, as I look at that last line once again, 
an enormous debt to boot, it brings to mind that child who is there. It 
is that child who is going to be shouldering the burden of a $1.1, 
$1.2, $1.3 trillion spending package that has been put before us, and 
that package has already passed through this House. Speaker Pelosi has 
announced that it is going to be completed by the end of next week.
  I wish very much that we would spend some time looking at what it is 
that we have offered as an alternative to create jobs and to allow 
people to keep dollars in their pockets.
  I thank my friend for yielding. I suspect that he is going to outline 
the very, very viable package which can provide that immediate boost 
which the American people want and need.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, yes. Gentlemen, thank you for coming to 
that point, because I don't like people to come in here and be critical 
and say that it's no good, that it will not work, and then don't offer 
a better alternative. The good news is that there is a better 
alternative. We don't have to be doing what we are doing.
  I noticed that my colleague from Georgia, again Dr. Gingrey, 
Congressman Gingrey, has got a chart here.
  Would you like me to yield, and do you want to explain what you have?
  Mr. GINGREY. I very much appreciate the gentleman's yielding. I thank 
him for that. I do have a chart I want to reference.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the American people are 
beginning to realize that this is unlikely to work and that there is a 
tremendous burden that it is going to put on them. As I pointed out on 
the previous chart, it is $10,400 per family. Now, they don't get that. 
That is not any money that comes to them. That is the debt burden.
  Now, in fact, in a recent Gallup Poll--the very reliable Gallup Poll. 
Everybody has heard of Gallup--there was a survey of 1,000 adult people 
nationwide; thirty-eight percent were in opposition to this bill as 
proposed, and another 17 percent said no matter what they do with it, 
no matter what changes they make, this is not the way to go. It is just 
as Secretary Morgenthau knew back in 1939. I wish Secretary Paulson and 
Secretary Geithner could understand that. Just throwing more money at 
this indiscriminately is not going to solve the problem. It is just 
going to sink us deeper and deeper into a recession and possibly even 
into a depression.
  So, yes, we have some ideas, and of course, my colleagues are here, 
and they are going to present some of these ideas.
  I want to yield back to the gentleman from Missouri, but let me 
quickly reference the poster.
  ``Sizing up the Stimulus'' is the title of the poster. Again, just to 
put this into perspective, the proposed stimulus is $1.2 trillion when 
you include the debt service over 10 years. So it's $825 billion and 
then the debt service. Then you compare that to other expenditures, to 
very important expenditures--to the Vietnam War, which was $111 billion 
with a B, not a T; to the invasion of Iraq, which was $551 billion with 
a B, not a T; and to the New Deal. We were referencing that, and that 
is what Mr. Morgenthau was talking about. It was $32 billion, and he 
said it was way too much spending, and here we're talking about $1.2 
trillion.
  Again, I think it would be better to cut taxes for everybody. We'll 
get into that later. I know the gentleman will do that, and maybe we'll 
give everybody a check for $2,500 rather than what we are doing.
  So I yield back to the gentleman, and I thank him for the time.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, I am also joined here today with 
Congressman Latta from Ohio. I believe he has got some charts and can 
help cast a little bit more light on exactly what this bill is that was 
just passed last week and what it means.
  It has $500 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. I wonder 
if that's going to get the economy going. It has got $54 billion for 19 
programs that the OMB--that is the Office of Management and Budget--
said were completely ineffective programs. Yet we are going to put $54 
billion into programs that, by our own definition, do not work. 
Particularly if you want to take a look at another one, there is $355 
million for STD funding. That may put a totally different meaning on 
the word ``stimulus.''
  Anyway, we are joined here by Congressman Latta from Ohio. Thank you 
for joining us, gentlemen, and I am interested in your perspective. I 
yield.
  Mr. LATTA. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding, and I also 
appreciate the comments that we have already heard from the gentleman 
from Georgia and also from the gentleman from California.

  Just to follow up, I was not going to speak to this, but if I may, I 
just happen to have in front of me the unemployment numbers during the 
Great Depression and the numbers leading into the Great Depression. I 
think about the statement from the Secretary of Treasury in 1939 and 
what he said about what the spending had done. When President Roosevelt 
was sworn into office in 1933, according to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, we had a 24.9 percent unemployment rate.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, let's get this number down. As to the 
number of unemployed when we started into the first big recession that 
was going to become the Great Depression, what was the percentage?
  Mr. LATTA. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1933, when 
he was sworn in, there was 24.9 percent unemployment.
  Just to kind of jump forward a little bit to the statement that was 
made to the House Ways and Means Committee by FDR's Secretary of the 
Treasury in 1939, that number was at 17.2 percent unemployment in this 
country. So, when they were talking of their trying the spending and of 
their trying to see how much they could do by spending more and more 
and more to get these numbers down, it did not work.
  Just fast-forwarding a little bit, unfortunately, when we got close 
to entering World War II in 1941--when the United States was becoming 
that arsenal of democracy--we had an unemployment rate of 9.9 percent. 
Then through the main war years of '42, '43, '44, and '45, we saw our 
unemployment rate go down to 4.7, 1.9, 1.2, and 1.9 percent. Again, 
let's just think about that. We had 16 million Americans in uniform at 
that time. We had everybody working--we had everybody in the war 
plants. All of the women were working--so Rosie the Riveter was 
everywhere. That unemployment rate dropped, but it was because of World 
War II, not because of what was going on in the Roosevelt 
administration in the 1930s.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, your point is just what was observed by 
the guy who was doing all of this Keynesian economics, this guy 
Morgenthau. After spending us into tremendous debt, he just basically 
said, after 8 years, we weren't able to create any jobs, and you're 
saying it was basically World War II that generated the jobs; am I 
correct? I yield.
  Mr. LATTA. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  That is absolutely correct. I don't think there is any economist out 
there who will say there was anything until we got into World War II 
when we saw the Great Depression break. Before Pearl Harbor in 1941, 
December 7, the unemployment rate was going down. Why? Because we had 
Americans working in those defense plants, who were making those arms 
that we were shipping overseas at the time, for example, under Lend-
Lease. So we watched those numbers start to drop, and they really 
dropped, of course, during World War II when Americans were out there 
in uniform and in the defense plants.
  As the gentleman had mentioned a little bit earlier, one of the 
things that concerns me is: Where are we going with this debt? Because 
we just keep adding to it in this country.
  Mr. AKIN. I hate to interrupt you. Could I reclaim my time for just a 
minute?

[[Page H1022]]

  We are joined here on the floor by another expert we have got, and I 
want to get right back to you, but Congressman Scalise is trying to 
catch an airplane pretty soon. I wanted to try to fit him in because I 
think he has an interesting perspective that just ties in beautifully 
with where you were going, Congressman Latta.
  So I yield to you, Congressman Scalise.
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding. I 
thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.
  What we have been talking about is a discussion we have been having 
here on this floor for the last few weeks. I am very encouraged that so 
many people across this country have started to really look at this 
bill closely and to recognize that, in fact, the bill that has been 
moving through the legislature here in Congress in the last few weeks 
is not, in fact, a stimulus bill. It is a massive spending bill, a bill 
that really will not do much to help get the economy started.
  The Congressional Budget Office reports, of course, show that very 
little of this money will go into the economy, but what it will do is 
add a massive additional national debt to a debt that is already over 
$11 trillion. We are already hearing that this bill is already 
approaching $900 billion. Some reports show over $1 trillion. In 
addition, the budget that is going to be presented in just a few weeks 
by President Obama is expected to be $1 trillion out of balance.
  All of this money that would be added to the national debt could add 
over 25 percent in 1 year to the total national debt of this country, 
whether or not it would actually provide stimulus to the economy. Most 
reports show it would not create any jobs. What it would do is increase 
inflation, devalue the dollar and put a tremendous burden on our 
children and grandchildren. I think that is why it is so important that 
we have worked so hard to come up with an alternative plan, a better 
way to solve this problem. That is, to go and look at tax cuts that 
will actually help middle-class families and small businesses that will 
create the jobs, not government spending, which in many cases has been 
spent on programs that have failed in the past and that create more 
government jobs. We need to be creating jobs in the private sector, and 
that is what I think is so encouraging.
  As we have been presenting these alternatives, I think people across 
the country have seen and have realized that this is a much better way. 
It is so important after the failed bailouts of the last year that we 
get this right, and that is why it is important that we have been 
talking about this as people are seeing it. I think they are realizing 
some of the same things that we saw in that bipartisan vote last week 
when not only all Republicans voted ``no'' but when, in fact, nearly a 
dozen Democrats also could not even stomach some of the spending by 
their own leadership and said ``no'' as well, because there is a better 
way.
  I appreciate the fact that you have been highlighting this, as have 
other Members, to show that there are better ways to solve this problem 
for the American people and to show how the American people have, I 
think, galvanized and have said the same thing. Big government spending 
in Washington is not going to solve this problem. Let's let middle-
class families who are out there tightening their belts already in 
States that are trying to balance their own budgets show the better way 
as opposed to the failed old approaches of liberal, big government 
spending.
  So I think the fact that we need to look out for our children and 
grandchildren is an extra highlight and why it is so important that we 
get this right and that we solve this problem the correct way. That is 
what this alternative plan does.
  I yield back.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, Congressman Scalise, thank you very 
much for your perspective, and I appreciate your optimistic and 
positive approach.
  We're not here just to say something won't work. We've got a better 
way to solve the problem. We've got something that has worked time 
after time historically, and the approach that is being proposed, which 
is just massive government spending, not only did it not work for 
Morgenthau, who was the guy who was the champion of this Keynesian 
economics for FDR, but it's never worked subsequently. It didn't work 
for the Japanese for 10 years, as they ran up huge debts, spent a whole 
lot of money.
  And the average American in this country has got enough common sense 
to realize that just dumping a whole lot of money, if you're in 
financial trouble and you're the captain of your own little family, 
you're not going to go out and buy brand new cars and run up a whole 
lot of debt. It doesn't make any sense. And for government to do that, 
the public knows that won't work either.
  But I want to get back to my good friend, Congressman Latta from 
Ohio, and I did interrupt you, and I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. LATTA. I appreciate you yielding back, and I think what you're 
talking about is, when we're running up these debts, I'd just like to 
run across just numbers.
  Let's just go back. If you look at this number on this chart right 
now, we're looking at over $10 trillion, $10.6 trillion of debt that 
this country owes, but let's just go back a few years, and it doesn't 
take us very long to do this.
  In 1979, the United States debt was at $829 billion; 1989, it was 
$2.8 trillion; 1999, $5.6 trillion. And here we are 10 years later just 
doubling this number, when you look from 1999 to where we are today at 
$10.6 trillion.
  But the real question that really concerned me is this, not only that 
massive huge debt but who owns this debt, you know, and you start 
looking at this chart right here. Right now, $682 billion of our debt 
today is owned by China. Going across, you're looking at Japan. Japan 
owns $577 billion; the United Kingdom, $360 billion; the Caribbean 
Banking Centers, $220 billion; the oil exporters--we send our money 
over to them. They're using our money to buy our debt. They have $198 
billion; Brazil, $129 billion.
  But it always wasn't this way. You know, in 1979, let's just go back 
a few years again. 1979, we had foreign debt of $119 billion; 1989, 
$429 billion; 1999, $1.2 trillion. These numbers are just escalating.
  And the problem we have today is this. We're having a situation out 
there is what happens when these other countries start stimulating 
their own economy and they start saying, you know what, we can't buy 
that American debt, who's going to be out there to buy that debt? And 
we have a couple of alternatives; either not issue that debt or have to 
put a higher interest rate out there to make these other countries want 
to buy our debt. Americans are saying we're not buying it; these other 
countries are.
  So I have a real concern of these problems, that other countries are 
owning our debt, that they could actually start dictating to the United 
States. The Chinese are telling us that we have to do something about 
our economy, you know.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman, what you are 
saying is--and you're saying it in a pretty sophisticated way, but just 
some poor old guy from Missouri, what I think you are saying, just like 
when we issued all of these loans that people couldn't pay, what we're 
doing, in a national sense, is we're like running down a dead-end 
street, and pretty soon, as we keep printing more and more money and 
keep getting more and more foreign countries buying our debt, there's 
going to become a time, a reckoning, and boy, it's really going to be 
unpleasant when we hit that stone wall at 70 miles an hour. Is that 
getting in the direction of what you're saying, Congressman? I yield.
  Mr. LATTA. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding again.
  Again, you are absolutely correct. We're hitting that situation right 
now. The rest of the world is looking at the same problems that we're 
having in this country, but we're issuing this massive debt out there, 
saying, please, buy our debt.
  And all we can do is, there's been very few articles in the national 
papers about this, and one of the few times we've seen some of the 
articles, they're saying, well, we have to make it attractive enough to 
keep people wanting to buy it out there. Well, how far is that and when 
are we going to get to that?

[[Page H1023]]

  My good German grandmother used to tell her grandkids this one 
saying, that he who goes a borrowing goes a sorrowing. And you know, 
we're at that point.
  And the real question is how are the future generations of this 
country, not just this generation but the next generation, and the one 
right after that, going to pay for this debt and how are they going to 
do that?
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, that is the question, isn't it? How is 
this going to work? And I think that really there are two theories here 
in terms of the way you handle the problem that we're in with the 
economy.
  One is you spend money like mad, which is what FDR tried to do and 
turned a recession into a Great Depression, and the Japanese followed 
that same example, went down the same street for 10 years, had a great 
big depression over there because they had a bunch of these guys 
thinking you could, quote, stimulate the economy by spending money like 
mad that you don't have.
  But that raises the question in that we already have the amount of 
debt that you're talking about. We should have great economy if that 
theory worked, shouldn't we?
  Mr. LATTA. Absolutely.
  Mr. AKIN. I mean, we've got a tremendous amount of debt; therefore, 
we shouldn't have any economic troubles. And just as Henry Morgenthau 
found out, it doesn't work. And the approach that is being done by the 
Pelosi Congress and what is being asked for by our new President is 
based on this Keynesian model of economics which really doesn't work.
  I also promised my good friend, the gentleman from the congressional 
district in Ohio, Congressman Jordan, wanted to let you have--we've got 
about 5 minutes or so here. I wanted to let you have a chance to chip 
in on the whole conversation. You have been very helpful, and your 
thinking is highly respected, I know, in our caucus.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I appreciate the gentleman for putting this 
Special Order hour together. This must be the Ohio hour because I 
notice the last two presiding officers over the Chamber were Ohioans as 
well, and then of course my friend from just north of our district, 
Congressman Latta and his expertise in this.
  Think about the average family, what they saw from their government 
last week. I think it's an important place to start as we think about 
this discussion.
  The typical family, what did they see from their government? They saw 
the United States Senate confirm for Secretary of the Treasury a 
gentleman who didn't pay his taxes on time. Think about it, not just 
any Cabinet position but Secretary of the Treasury. Then they saw from 
the House of Representatives, the other side of Congress, they saw the 
House of Representatives pass a stimulus package that will not do 
anything to foster and promote economic growth. I mean, that's your 
government at work, America, certainly not where we need to be.
  Think about this stimulus package that we've been talking about and 
what it doesn't mean for promoting economic growth now and what it 
means, long-term implications for our kids and grandkids and the debt 
that it preserves.
  First thing is this, and my colleague, our colleague from Louisiana I 
think said it right. The American people get it. They have figured out 
that this, quote, stimulus package is not what our country needs at 
this particular time. They don't like the process that was used and, 
frankly, the lack of process, the lack of the fact that the Republicans 
weren't included, and they don't like the finished product, the 
finished product that has such things in it like $600 million for the 
government to buy a new fleet of automobiles.
  I'd much rather cut taxes so that families can use that tax money, 
their tax money, to purchase their own car versus giving more cars to 
the bureaucrats who work here in Washington.
  So they don't like the process. They don't like the product. And I 
think they also understand, which was being pointed out very well by 
our friend and colleague from Ohio, Congressman Latta, they understand 
that this spending spree that has grabbed Washington over the last 
several months is just wrong to do to future generations of Americans. 
It is wrong to saddle our kids and our grandkids with this kind of 
debt, the kind of debt that Congressman Latta was pointing out and I 
know Congressman Akin has pointed out earlier in the hour.

  Think about this. We're going to run a deficit this fiscal year 
approaching 10 percent of gross domestic product. Never in the history 
of this country have we run that kind of debt. You have to go back to 
World War II when we're fighting a world war to when it's close to 6 
percent of GDP. This year it looks like it's going to be close to 10 
percent of gross domestic product.
  They understand that's not the direction to go. They understand that 
what really fosters economic growth is reducing the tax burden on 
families, on taxpayers, on small business owners so they can keep more 
of their money, put it to work in the private sector, put it to work in 
their small business, creating jobs, protecting jobs, and promoting 
economic growth for the future. That's where we need to focus.
  Short-term, fast-acting tax relief versus big government spending. 
The American people understand tax relief is where we need to go. 
That's the alternative we've been supporting. That's the alternative 
we'll continue to support. And the good news is, that's what the Senate 
is beginning to look at.
  We did a press conference today with some of the Senate Republicans, 
and they are talking about focusing on some of the same tax cut 
provisions we tried to get in the bill over here on the House side.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time for just a second here, what you're 
talking about is where I really wanted to get to with this conversation 
tonight.
  We're not just saying things won't work. Yes, what's being proposed, 
putting the government tremendously into debt, a lot Federal spending 
does not solve the problem, but there is a way to solve this problem. 
It's just going to require a little discipline, like some good 
wrestlers in the State of Ohio know, and I want to let you continue 
with that because we have a solution, a positive way, a bold approach 
to take care of this problem. We don't have to turn a recession into a 
great depression. But the solution that's being proposed always created 
depressions from recessions. We don't want to do that. We've got a way 
to solve the problem.
  I yield.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  My colleague said earlier that if big Federal Government spending was 
going to get us out of this mess it would have happened a long time ago 
because we've certainly been doing that. And you're exactly right. The 
easiest thing in the world to do for politicians, for policy-makers, 
for Members of Congress is to spend money. It's the easy thing to do.
  The tough thing to do is the discipline thing to do. I had an old 
coach in high school and he talked about discipline every day in 
practice. And his definition was this. Discipline is doing what you 
don't want to do when you don't want to do it. It meant doing it his 
way when you'd rather do it your way, but it left an impression on me.
  And frankly, the disciplined thing to do is to say we're going to 
stop this excessive spending; we're going to reduce the tax burden here 
so that business owners and families can have more of their money and 
promote economic growth and do the things that we know work in an 
economy. That's what we have to focus on and have the discipline to say 
we're not going to continue to spend and spend and spend and mortgage 
our kids' and grandkids' future.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, I very much appreciate your perspective 
in getting to the positive solution.
  And I would yield to the gentleman. We've just got a minute or two, 
but if you'd like to join us, I yield.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I want to thank the gentleman for having this very 
important discussion tonight on the House floor.
  My fear is what we've done here in the name of stimulus is actually 
create an unrestrained, unsustainable spending bill. And since the year 
2000 or so, it's very important to note that the Federal Government has 
actually grown by about 60 percent. We've been on an 8-year stimulus 
run in the name of spending, if you will, and yet we remain in economic 
straits at the moment.

[[Page H1024]]

  I think this is very important to point out because the other problem 
here is the massive amounts of debt that we're going to compile if this 
bill should be passed. Debt that is unpaid for--the stimulus bill not 
being paid for--will be passed along to future generations, children 
and grandchildren, or it will be sold, the wealth asset value of this 
country sold overseas to foreign debt holders, or it will come out in 
other forms of taxation such as inflation.
  Mr. AKIN. Just reclaiming my time for a second, you're talking in 
kind of economic terms, but further, what does that mean to the average 
person in our district? It means a lower standard of living, doesn't 
it? It means you can't make ends meet. It means you're not going to buy 
the food you want to buy. And I yield again.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Inflation is a very regressive form of taxation, 
particularly among the most vulnerable among us.
  With that, let me say, I don't want to see any family experience 
unemployment, any business take a downturn or any family experience a 
foreclosure. And with that said, I think it's very, very important that 
we work very hard to get this right, a plan that makes sense, that 
maximizes economic productivity through any type of new governmental 
policies that we set, but a plan that is also potentially paid for over 
time and that does have some new bold ideas in it.
  One of the problems here as well, though, is that much of the 
spending is targeted to States, and some States like Nebraska, we've 
been very fortunate to be insulated from these larger downward economic 
trends. We have a strong ag economy that is hitting some bumps at the 
moment, but nonetheless, we also have a set of values, if you will, 
where people work hard and take responsibility for themselves and care 
for their neighbor. Businesses, as well as our citizens, have made 
prudential decisions about buying and lending, and we haven't suffered 
like the rest of the country in this regard.
  But with that said, this bill effectively asks Nebraskans to 
subsidize other States that may have been poorly governing and want the 
Federal Government basically to make the tough decisions for them, not 
force them to make the tough decisions.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, I think what you're saying in a polite, 
sort of sensitive way is California has been spending money at an 
incredible pace, and the question is, should Nebraska have to subsidize 
California? And that's really what we're talking about, isn't it? I 
yield back to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  I think we are. It's a very important point to be made that a lot of 
communities in a lot of places have had to make choices with limited 
budgets to set priorities and have not rushed up to Washington to say 
bail us out, help us out. They have made those tough choices 
responsibly, and it's places like those, like Nebraska and other 
places, that I fear are subsidizing other places that have not 
performed admirably in terms of governance.
  Another point here is I think there are some bold, new, innovative 
ideas in this overall package. I think they could be potentially 
considered as stand-alone measures. President Obama has a strong focus 
on, for instance, alternative energy development for a sustainable 
energy future.

                              {time}  1830

  This economic crisis was precipitated by, you recall, a very high 
spike in energy costs which accelerated other difficulties in the 
economy. But we've almost forgotten that now. Can you imagine where we 
would be if gas were $4 a gallon right now? So we've dodged a bullet 
right there.
  But trying to get underneath the question as to what our real 
economic vulnerabilities are, including our overdependence on foreign 
oil and fossil fuel in general, is an important policy consideration.
  So there are some admirable components here that might ought to be 
considered as a part of a reasoned stimulus plan that has a payment 
schedule for it, or stand alone separately.
  So we don't want to stand here and simply oppose everything in that 
regard. But we are halfway.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time.
  I think we've got just a very short amount of time left.
  But your point is so good. Our objective is not just to say what 
won't work but to say what won't work because we know it won't work, 
and instead, let's adopt something that's helping those families. I was 
talking about it earlier, the picture that just keeps jumping in my 
mind--and this is happening all over the world because of our lack of 
bold and decisive and disciplined action here--the picture that comes 
to my mind is the house with the foreclosure and the easy chair and the 
sofa sitting on the sidewalk. And I'm thinking about the mom or the dad 
of that family and the pressure that they feel where they're just 
dumped right out of their house. This is not just economic numbers, 
this is the people of our country.
  I yield my last 30 seconds.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, again, I'm grateful.
  We don't, again, want to see any family suffer any unemployment or 
suffer any situation like that. But I think this letter that I got 
today from a constituent back home from Gail in Fremont says quite a 
bit. She said, ``I'm writing to let you know I oppose the stimulus, 
Congressman. I'm opposed,'' she adds, ``to the overwhelming debt the 
government is all too willing to place on us with no long-range plan 
for getting us back on stable ground.''
  She goes on, ``What is the Federal Government doing without during 
this emergency?'' She says, ``In my home when there's no money, we do 
without. We don't spend money we don't have. I'd rather tighten my belt 
for a time than to live the rest of my life under the burden of 
increased taxes for this bloated stimulus package.''
  Unrestrained, unsustainable spending is the issue here, and we need 
to maximize economic productivity through smart thinking about what 
really is stimulus.
  Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time.
  Thank you, Madam Speaker.

                          ____________________