[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 11, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H1227-H1233]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL AND THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kissell). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, thank you, and I'm grateful for 
the opportunity to be before my colleagues this evening to discuss a 
couple of very important issues. One, of course, is immediate and that 
is this crisis in our economic situation and the so-called economic 
spendulous--excuse me, stimulus--bill. I use that slip of the tongue, 
Mr. Speaker, deliberately, because when I talk to my colleagues about 
the amount of money that we're about to spend to try to stimulate our 
economy, I think all of my colleagues will agree it's a tremendous 
amount of spending. And so we do want to spend at least the first half 
of this allotted time, Mr. Speaker, talking about that issue, about 
this bill that we're going to be voting on, probably tomorrow, if my 
intelligence is correct, and then the Senate will vote on the 
conference report on Friday and President Obama, no doubt, will sign 
this spendulous bill into law. So we want to spend at least half of our 
time talking about that and talking about the process and talking about 
the policy and talking about the missed opportunity to have done this 
in a better way.
  And then in the final time allotted to me this evening, I want to 
speak about something that is of great concern to a lot of people 
across this country, certainly of great concern to the members of St. 
Joseph's Catholic Church in my district, the 11th of Georgia, in my 
parish, St. Joseph's Catholic Church. As my pastor and my fellow 
parishioners asked me, many of them I'm sure didn't realize that one of 
their co-parishioners was their Congressman, but from the pulpit the 
request to ask Members of Congress to not allow something called the 
Freedom of Choice Act to be allowed to come into law. And so we are 
going to discuss that.
  I'm very pleased, though, that I have a colleague with me tonight and 
we'll share time, that's Representative Michele Bachmann from 
Minnesota, and we may have other Members that will join us. I want them 
at any time to feel free to ask for time and to speak, or we can have a 
colloquy on either one of these issues.
  Let me just start out, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, and 
let's talk about this economic stimulus package. It is, as I 
understand, in the final analysis going to be $798 billion. We 
currently have a national debt of $10.7 trillion. This is almost going 
to increase that national debt by 10 percent, Mr. Speaker--by 10 
percent--and under the ruse, unfortunately, I truly believe that it is 
a ruse, of stimulating jobs. Now we have had, indeed, an opportunity, 
many opportunities over the last several weeks to look at some 
alternatives, to do things under the regular order, regular process, of 
subcommittee, committee markups, amendments made in order, so that both 
sides of the aisle had an opportunity to do this right, to make it 
better, to concentrate more on across-the-board tax cuts at every 
marginal tax level as the Republican alternative does, to lower the 
corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, so that these 
multitude of small business men and women across this country who 
create most of the jobs. In fact, the organization of franchisee 
members are on the Hill right now for their first annual, first 
inaugural advocacy day, and they will be across the Capitol tomorrow in 
both Chambers, in the offices of the Members, talking to them about the 
strain and struggle that

[[Page H1228]]

they're going through in regard to very thin margins, high taxes, high 
cost of health care.
  When we designed, we Republicans in the minority, designed a bill, I 
think it's H.R. 470 is the number, but, Mr. Speaker, it had a strong 
emphasis on a tax break for all Americans, anybody that paid taxes, 5 
percent across the board, to give them an opportunity to have money in 
their pockets right away, to either spend or save or pay down debt. In 
addition to that, we are very much in favor of spending on 
infrastructure projects, roads and bridges and mass transit, things 
that indeed would put people back to work, I have no doubt.
  My State of Georgia, our Department of Transportation board members 
and commissioner and senior staff are up here as we speak to talk about 
the shovel-ready projects that they have. And when this bill was first 
discussed back when President Obama was President-elect Obama, all the 
talk was about the amount of money that would be spent in all 50 
States, all 50 States that are suffering, my home State of Georgia 
facing a $3 billion deficit, to have the opportunity, as I say, to get 
some of these projects done and put people back to work.
  Mr. Speaker, in the final bill, now could it have changed a little 
bit in the conference report? It is possible, but unfortunately the 
Democratic majority who pledged to allow the bill to be posted on the 
Internet so that we could see it 48 hours in advance and be able to 
know what exactly is in there, but that hasn't happened, but it is my 
suspicion that the percentage of that $789.5 billion is probably no 
more than 7 percent, Mr. Speaker. No more than 7 percent. It's almost 
as tricky as the so-called TARP legislation.

                              {time}  1900

  Remember that, Mr. Speaker? My colleagues, remember that one? Just 
before the end of the 110th Congress, when Secretary Paulson came to us 
and said ``the sky is indeed falling, and you have no more than 48 
hours to give me the absolute power to take $750 billion of taxpayer 
money and use it to buy toxic assets, troubled assets, from financial 
institutions.'' And of course, what happened was something far 
different from that. The TARP became a totally inappropriate acronym. 
The Troubled Asset Relief Program turned into a capital infusion 
program. And $750 billion, half of it, was doled out to the biggest 
financial institutions in the country, I think nine total. Some of them 
were even forced to take the money. And then, of course, the money that 
went to General Motors and Chrysler. We even made the GMAC a bank so 
they could qualify for the capital infusion with no oversight, no 
responsibility and no transparency.
  And so you say, Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress, and also as one 
of our constituents, a voter, whether a Democrat, Republican, 
independent, libertarian, said look, ``fool me once, shame on you. Fool 
me twice, shame on me.'' And I don't think the American public is going 
to fall for this so-called ``stimulus package'' that was supposed to be 
money for infrastructure projects with a good balanced amount of tax 
cuts. It is just not there. It is just not there.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we're going to talk about that this evening. And 
before I yield to my colleague from Minnesota, I just want to put these 
numbers a little bit in perspective. Now I have a few posters. And 
these were drawn up as we voted on the House version. In the House 
version, the number was a little higher than the $789.5 billion that 
we're going to vote on tomorrow. But it was in the same ballpark, 
believe me.
  Let me show this first poster to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and this 
one is entitled, ``Sizing Up the Stimulus.'' Well, the proposed 
stimulus in the bill that passed the House a few days ago was $1.2 
trillion. Now that includes the debt service over the next 10 years on 
that borrowed money, and it would be disingenuous not to. You could 
say, ``oh, no, no, Congressman, you have got it wrong. It was $826 
billion. Where do you come up with that $1.2 trillion?'' Well, ladies 
and gentlemen, that is the debt service. And you cannot ignore that. 
That has to be paid. And pretty soon, the debt service and the payment 
for Medicare, Medicaid and entitlement programs is going to take every 
dollar of our budget.
  So, anyway, the proposed stimulus, $1.2 trillion, put in comparison, 
I know this is a little difficult to see, the writing is a little 
small, but the Vietnam war, $111 billion, the invasion of Iraq, $551 
billion. The New Deal, the New Deal, remember that one? Thirty-two 
billion dollars. And then the Marshall Plan, $12.7 billion. Just to 
kind of put these numbers in perspective of what we're talking about 
because people, Mr. Speaker, easily get a little confused here. Did he 
say $1 million or did he say $1 billion? And what is $1 trillion? We 
could describe that. And maybe my colleague knows a good description of 
how far you could stretch $1 trillion. It would probably cross the 
globe three times.
  Also continuing on that vein of trying to put the cost of this in 
perspective. Now this is based on the estimated number of jobs that 
would be created by the Democratic majority by this ``spendulous plan'' 
that we're going to vote on, as I say, tomorrow. They're estimating 
that the number of jobs that would be created may be five or six, well, 
I think it is down to 4 million. And actually the President is not even 
saying the creation, Mr. Speaker, of 4 million jobs. He is saying the 
sustainment of and/or creation. So there is really no guarantee and no 
pledge of that, indeed, but if it does create 4 million jobs, the cost 
of this, just simple math, $275,000 a job, $275,000 a job. And I'm sure 
many of these jobs will be paying $25,000 a year. You could hand that 
money to a worker and keep him or her employed for 8\1/2\ years at that 
rate with a good benefit package. So, again, the cost per job is 
prohibitive in my opinion.
  Colleagues, I'm going to show you one more poster before I yield to 
the gentlelady from Minnesota. This is a very, very telling chart. And 
again, strain your eyes a bit because it is worth seeing. And I will 
try to walk you through it. And it is titled, ``Can You Afford to Pay 
for the Democratic Spending Bill?'' Can you afford to pay for it? At 
$825 billion, the economic stimulus plan sailing through Congress, and 
indeed it is sailing through. We're not going to have 48 hours to look 
at it. The stimulus plan would cost each American family more than 
$10,000 on average, each American family more than $10,000. Here is how 
that price tag compares with typical family expenses in a year. And, 
Mr. Speaker, I realize I'm talking to my colleagues on this floor, both 
Republicans and Democrats. I'm not talking to the television audience 
back home. But the men and women who serve here have families. And they 
have family expenses. And I'm sure when I point out that on average, a 
typical family spends $10,400 a year on food, clothing and health care 
and on shelter, their home, whether they own their home or rental cost, 
their shelter is $11,657 for their family. And the stimulus spending is 
going to cost them $10,520. Thirty percent of their overall family 
budget is going to go toward this stimulus ``spendulous'' bill that is 
supposedly going to create all these jobs and get us out of this severe 
economic recession.
  Well, would it be worth taking the chance even if we had no other 
alternatives? Well President Obama says ``yes.'' Vice President Biden 
says, ``well it does have, I hate to admit, a 30 percent chance of 
failing.'' Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, that is too great a chance. 
Those odds are not good, not good enough for the American people. The 
Members of this side of the aisle, the Republican Members, the minority 
Members, and quite honestly, if they had a chance to speak up and to 
submit amendments, maybe 50 of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats 
would agree with us. I wish they would have the opportunity to take a 
vote. Unfortunately, that has not occurred in this new open 
bipartisanship spirit that Speaker Pelosi has promised in the 111th 
Congress.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would love to yield some time now to my 
colleague from Minnesota. Michele Bachmann is in her second term, but 
you would think that it was her tenth term. She is doing an outstanding 
job. She is very knowledgeable on this issue.
  And I will gladly yield to my colleague.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey). He has done a marvelous job laying the groundwork and pouring 
the

[[Page H1229]]

pillars of this important discussion. This is historic, as we all know. 
Our colleagues understand how historic this level of spending is. Never 
before in the history of this country have we seen the type of 
profligate spending that has occurred just since January of this year. 
Just yesterday, as a matter of fact, we had a $3 trillion day here on 
Capitol Hill. That is big money. You have heard of fantasy football 
before. Well, this is fantasy economics that is happening here in 
Washington, D.C.
  My colleague will recall it wasn't that long ago that we were 
fighting on expanding the SCHIP program by $35 billion before we first 
take care of the children who needed to be on the SCHIP program. We 
didn't want to expand eligibility until we first took care of the poor 
children that needed to have that SCHIP funding. So to just get things 
in perspective for the American people, we've moved from fighting tooth 
and nail over spending $35 billion to today we're talking, as my 
colleague mentioned, what appears to be $798 billion. But again, that 
is the raw number. It is just like when you buy a house or if you buy a 
car on credit and you're making your mortgage payment, you know you pay 
an awful lot more back to the bank because you have to make all those 
interest payments. This bill will be well over $1 trillion, including 
the debt service. So we're not talking about a small amount of money.
  And just also to put this in perspective and in context, normally 
this Congress spends about $1 trillion a year in Federal discretionary 
spending. And we will take what, perhaps 1,000, 1,200 votes in the 
course of a year until we finally spend about $1 trillion in spending. 
Well, consider, it wasn't even the end of January and this body spent, 
in one vote, what this body normally spends in over 1,000 votes over 
the course of 12 months to spend in discretionary spending.
  And remember, this body has hasn't even taken up yet the normal 
appropriations bills that we have to take up for parks, public safety 
and education. We haven't even gone there yet with regular budgetary 
spending that is the duty of this House of Representatives to spend. 
We've already over and above spent now another $1 trillion on the 
spending package. We're very concerned about the level of profligate 
spending.
  I wanted to mention a study that was completed by Harvard in the year 
2002. It was a long-term study. It looked at 18 different economies 
across the globe. And it asked this very simple question. What is it 
that governments can do to stimulate or cause economies to prosper, and 
concomitantly, what do governments do to cause economies to go in a 
downward spiral? Well, here is the bottom line. Here is what the 
nutshell of what this long-term study discovered. It was this: If you 
want an economy, any kind of economy, to prosper and advance, 
governments need to do two things. You need to cut government wages, 
number one, and number two, you need to cut transfer payments, which is 
redistribution of wealth.
  This stimulus package, which is a big government bailout package, 
does just the opposite. It increases funding eventually of government 
wages and also of transfer payments. The reverse then also is true in 
this Harvard study. It said what can governments do to hurt their 
economies? And it is very simple: Tax increases. That is what hasn't 
been talked about in this discussion. The only subject of discussion in 
Washington, D.C. has been, how big can this bill be? How much can we 
spend?
  I'm a former Federal tax litigation attorney. That is what I did for 
a living, deal with taxes. This bill doesn't answer the question, how 
are we going to pay for this bill? I don't think the American people 
realize that yet. Congress has been so free with the American people's 
money to spend it in every direction they possibly can, but they 
haven't even addressed the question yet of how they are going to pay 
for this trillion dollars. And my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) 
is exactly right when he said that we have over $10 trillion of debt, 
$10 trillion in debt. And now we're going to add to that another 10 
percent, and we haven't answered the question, how are we going to pay 
for it? Well, it is real simple. This is not too tough to figure out. 
There are only two ways to pay for that kind of spending. You either 
borrow it from other countries, or you increase the tax load on your 
citizens, or the Federal Government prints money and puts that money 
out into the money supply.

                              {time}  1915

  Well, what does that mean? Massive tax increases. We already know 
it's going to hurt the individual. It will hurt the economy. What about 
borrowing? Borrowing is the same thing. We have to pay that money back. 
We pay it back to other countries. Well, guess what? Other countries 
right now are suffering globally with their economies as well.
  What about printing money, putting that into the money supply? We 
could do that, but that's the cruelest tax of all because that's the 
tax of inflation. So hardworking, prudent Americans who've done all the 
right things, who've invested well, will see the value of their dollar 
drop dramatically because their money isn't worth what it once was.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentlelady will yield just for a 
second. Reclaiming my time. I'm so glad that Representative Bachmann 
brought that out about inflationary spiral; and that's absolutely true. 
You print this money and this debt has to be paid back. First thing you 
know, the value of our money goes down, and then we've created all 
these jobs that maybe pay $25,000 a year, and first thing you know, 
people wake up and realize that their money is only worth $15,000 a 
year. So that is a huge, huge problem.
  And I wanted to make one other point before yielding back to my 
colleague. As we look at what she was talking about, this national 
debt, we are approaching a, what, $15 trillion national debt, which is 
the Gross Domestic Product. The sum of all goods and services in this 
country is about $15 trillion. And after we add on this death we're 
going to be at $12.5 trillion. So anybody that has just a scintilla of 
knowledge of economics knows that this is unsustainable.
  And I yield back to my colleague.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Georgia to bring that point 
up, because what he is stating for the American people is that this 
Congress is making a decision, together with the Obama administration, 
we are adding to uncertainty in the marketplace, and that's really the 
issue, will this Congress address the issue of certainty versus 
uncertainty in the economy.
  I have the largest window manufacturer in the United States in my 
district. I met with the president of that company several years ago 
and he said to me, Michele, what we need more than anything is 
certainty in the marketplace.
  If you go back to January of 2008, when this Congress made a decision 
to spend $168 billion in rebate payments that went back into the 
economy, that decision only led to uncertainty for the American people, 
uncertainty for American business.
  We could go through all of the spending initiatives that Congress 
took through all of 2008 and now into 2009. But I think yesterday said 
it all, when our United States Treasury Secretary, Mr. Tim Geithner, 
made his press conference that was well anticipated, what will the 
Obama administration do about the TARP monies that are available? We 
saw Wall Street's response, and it was to tank. Why? Because the Obama 
administration said what they want to do is have bigger and more 
powerful government. That's what they wanted, bottom line, bigger more 
powerful government. That did not calm the markets. That only led to 
uncertainty in the marketplace. It didn't lead to certainty. That's 
what we need. What would lead to certainty? And what would lead to 
certainty into the marketplace would be permanent tax reductions. If 
businesses and individuals who were interested in risk-taking with 
their investments knew that we would permanently cut the capital gains 
tax, permanently lower the business tax, the corporate tax rate, 
permanently lower marginal tax rates, do something about the estate tax 
problem that's going to spring open in 2010, and also, if they knew 
that we were going to radically reform the Sarbanes-Oxley rules, that 
would send a signal.
  Instead, what does the stimulus do? It tells the American people, 
well,

[[Page H1230]]

we're also going to embrace socialized medicine. What? Embrace 
socialized medicine? This is not what the American people bargained 
for. This is not what they asked for.
  We also know that the current administration wants to impose the 
largest energy tax we've ever seen in the history of our country, also 
known as the cap-and-trade system. This leads to massive uncertainty.
  If we would have taken $1 trillion last year that we spent on 
spending and put $1 trillion into permanent tax relief, I think the 
gentleman from Georgia would agree, this year, our biggest problem 
would be finding enough workers to fill the jobs that would have been 
created from permanent tax relief. That's an alternative that the 
Republican positive solution has put on the table for American business 
and American individuals. We've got a plan. We've got a big plan. And 
that's the genius of America. We trust the American people to take 
their ingenuity to pour it into the marketplace, because we understand 
that's true wealth creation.
  Governments can't create wealth. They never have, they never will. 
It's the American people and American businesses that create wealth. 
How? By productivity. How do you get productivity? You produce goods, 
you produce services. How do you do that? You put capital at work. Why 
do you do that? You know that you're going to have a return on your 
investment.
  Today, the American business world sees there will be very little 
return on investment. But the Republican plan offers all sorts of 
return on investment. And that's why, to the gentleman from Georgia I 
know this is a marvelous way to go, and I'll be happy to add to your 
colloquy as we go.
  I'll yield back.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Reclaiming my time. Absolutely, what you say 
couldn't be more true.
  And I want to briefly, Mr. Speaker, talk about another colleague from 
Georgia in the other body, and that's our junior Senator, Johnny 
Isakson, a neighbor of mine in Cobb County who has been serving so 
well, first in this House, Mr. Speaker, and now in the United States 
Senate.
  But Johnny Isakson, who has been in the real estate business, I think 
he spent 40 years in the real estate business. His dad owned Northside 
Realty. And he has gone, he's seen us go through periods like this in 
the past. And as he was explaining to me, I believe Gerald Ford was 
President when we went through the last real downturn in the housing 
market. And what stimulated the market to come back, Mr. Speaker, was a 
$2,000 tax credit for the purchase of a new home, not for flipping or 
investment, but as a homestead. And within a short period of time, I'm 
going to say, 6 months to a year, that economy, that housing market was 
back to life, and nails were being driven, and walls were being framed 
and foundations were being laid and, indeed, happy times were here 
again.
  So what Johnny Isakson, Senator Isakson proposed, Mr. Speaker, to get 
this housing market going and stimulated, and let's face it. As he 
pointed out, and I completely agree, it was the housing market which 
brought us down and got us in this situation, and it's going to be the 
resumption, restoration of the housing market that is going to pull us 
out.
  And Senator Isakson had an amendment on the Senate side. And his 
amendment, my colleagues, that anybody that purchased a home, it 
doesn't have to be a home in foreclosure, it could be one of these 
homes that 200, 300, $400,000 homes that are just sitting there with 
weeds growing in the front yard, beautiful new homes that have been in 
inventory for a year and a half, builders, many of them, of course, 
bankrupt and out of business. But if any homeowner purchased a new 
home, they would get a $15,000 refundable tax credit. And it would not 
have to be paid back. And of course that amendment was welcomed with 
open arms on the Senate side, as I understand. I think it may have been 
approved by voice vote.

  And now, all of a sudden, maybe it's they're suspecting that the 
Senator cannot, in good conscience, support this overall package. I'm 
not really sure. But his amendment is pulled out. And I get a notice of 
that, Mr. Speaker, when I'm looking at the fact that the conferees have 
come to an agreement on this $789.5 billion, and Senator Isakson's 
amendment is gone and we've receded to the House version, which is a 
pittance in comparison and, quite honestly, not nearly enough to 
stimulate the housing market.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
let's speak frank on occasion. The meddlesome activity of this 
Congress, and maybe former administrations caused the problem that 
we're in. It caused the subprime loan crisis. It turned renters into 
homeowners when they had poor credit, they had no money to pay down, 
not a bit. They didn't have to verify their income. They didn't even 
have to verify they had a job. And then the thinking was, well, it 
doesn't matter, because the houses are going to appreciate in value, 
and they can pull the equity out. And you know, we've got this never-
ending, wonderful cycle heading for the pot of gold at the end of the 
rainbow.
  Well, all of a sudden that bubble burst, and now we're in a terrible 
situation. But that what started it all. That's what started it all, 
Mr. Speaker.
  And it seems to me, and I'm sure my colleague will agree with me, 
that if we address the housing crisis with a bold amendment, it should 
maybe now should be a stand-alone bill that Senator Johnny Isakson has 
presented, and we take a spending bill, a true stimulus spending bill 
with a major emphasis, as Representative Bachmann has just pointed out, 
on tax relief, tax relief for men and women who are paying taxes at 
every marginal rate, and certainly for these small businessmen and 
women who bear the brunt of the taxation, and create most of the jobs, 
if we combine those two things with maybe some targeted, meaningful 
infrastructure spending for the 50 States that are struggling, many of 
them here in town this week, and I understand their needs, then I could 
support that and I could support it with enthusiasm and I think you 
could see bipartisan support.
  But this bill, it became just a wish list for the Democratic majority 
for things, Mr. Speaker, that they've been wanting to do under regular 
order for years and couldn't do it. I mean, I can enumerate and I can 
point out certain things and it would make you laugh if it didn't make 
you sick. But did it have anything to do truly with creating jobs? I 
say no. And that's why I said no when I voted.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, before I yield back to my colleague from 
Minnesota, we did have a bipartisan vote on the floor of this House of 
Representatives. We, indeed had a bipartisan vote. We had 11 Democrats 
joining 178 Republicans voting ``no.'' We did not have one single 
Republican voting ``yes.'' So the bipartisan vote was the ``no'' vote 
because I think you've got wise men and women on both sides of the 
aisle that realize that this is not the way to go.
  And I yield back to my colleague.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank Mr. Gingrey from Georgia for his fine words. 
And I think one thing that also we should address is the issue that was 
brought up earlier this week by our President in his press conference, 
when he stated that only the Federal Government, he said the Federal 
Government is the only entity left big enough and powerful enough to 
pull us out of this recession. And I was really struck by that comment 
that he made. That is a tremendous amount of faith to have in the 
Federal Government. And it views the Federal Government almost as a 
Good Fairy, or as the Easter Bunny, or as Santa Claus, that it's the 
Federal Government that's going to be able to pull the economy out of 
the doldrums. If that is the case, then why doesn't the Federal 
Government go ahead and take over everything and just run this country 
and we just decide we're going to become full-blown, socialist state. I 
don't think that's what the American people are calling for.
  If you look at the living laboratory of the last 100 years of 
economics, you look at when America has prospered, what economic 
policies we followed, and when America has foundered, and it's almost 
like an economic punctuated equilibrium. If you look at the 1930s, 
under FDR, with historic levels of government spending, historic levels 
of government intervention, the United

[[Page H1231]]

States Secretary of the Treasury during the 1930s was Mr. Henry 
Morganthau. And after nearly 8 years of historic levels of government 
spending, and historic levels of government intervention, unemployment 
levels remained the same as they were at the beginning, about 20, 22 
percent level. That's horrific in the United States. The economy had 
not turned around after that period of time, after historic levels of 
spending.

                              {time}  1930

  Sitting before the Democratic controlled Ways and Means Committee in 
1939, Henry Morgenthau said this:
  ``After historic levels of spending, we aren't any better off now 
than we were when we first started. The formula we tried did not 
work.''
  Then if you leap forward to the 1960s and 1970s and look at the 
historic levels of spending that occurred under both LBJ and again 
under Jimmy Carter, we heard my colleague Mr. Gingrey talk about the 
housing recession that we had during the time of Gerald Ford and about 
this massive government spending. This was not the policy that brought 
us out of the economic doldrums. You look at what did work. Look at the 
dramatic tax cuts that took place in the early 1980s under Ronald 
Reagan that turned this country around, that pivoted us economically 
and started us moving forward. Under that policy, under welfare reform 
that President Bill Clinton signed into law in the 1990s, we saw the 
government rise, and we saw the local economy rise across our Nation.
  It is phenomenal what can happen, and it is because of the genius of 
American initiative. We could do that again. We are still the United 
States of America. We can still flower and can succeed. When I think 
that all across the globe we look at global economies that are tanking 
right now, the United States has the potential for being the center of 
the storm of security because we have so much in place that could offer 
the world a safe haven for dollars if we were to embrace the policy 
that both Representative Gingrey and I have been behind, which is this:
  Dramatic cuts in government spending and dramatic cuts in taxation. 
If we have permanent levels of taxation cuts where we lay a ground of 
certainty in the marketplace, we will see investors want to put capital 
out if we can zero out capital gains for 3 years. The United States now 
has the second highest level of taxation in the world. Why would anyone 
choose the United States to invest in right now? We are not a positive 
investment climate, but if we would cut corporate tax rates from 34 
percent down to 9 percent, zero out capital gains for 3 years, cut 
marginal tax rates at all levels, as Representative Gingrey has said, 
and also wipe out the death tax, you would see the economy turn around. 
Within 6 months, we would be shooting up. Within 18 months, I believe 
we would have gone through a recession and that we would be roaring, 
and the rest of the world would look to the United States to invest 
their currency, and we would forever, I think, be the leader on into 
the future. We have a good story to tell.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, yes, there is no question 
about it. As for many of these companies--international companies and 
United States domestic companies that might have an offshore location--
the reason they don't bring their profits back into the United States 
and bring their employment bases as well is due to this tax burden that 
Representative Bachmann just pointed out in regard to--I think she is 
right--the industrialized countries. We may have the second highest 
corporate tax rate of any country. Of course, then you add State and 
local. So no wonder we're struggling.
  But I will yield back, and we will continue this very, very important 
discussion.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
  One thing that I am very concerned about as a former Federal tax 
lawyer is the burden on the 20- to 25-year-olds. I cannot look 20- and 
25-year-olds in the eye and in good conscience say to them, ``This 
stimulus bill will be good for you.'' It will not. Why? Because kids 
born during that time period already are inheriting a huge tax bill.
  Studies have been done. In my postdoctoral studies that I did in tax 
law, what my research showed is that, by the time they reach their peak 
earning years, 20- to 25-year-olds will have to pay a tax burden. Just 
the Social Security portion of their tax burden will be about 25 
percent of their total income. That does not include the Medicaid 
portion of their tax bills, the Federal tax portion of their tax bills, 
the State portion, their property tax, their gas tax, their local 
taxes. By the time all of it is added up, the estimates are, in their 
peak earning years, that 20- to 25-year-olds could be paying anywhere 
from 70 to 85 percent of their income in taxation. You heard me right. 
They could be paying 70 to 85 percent in taxation. That cannot happen. 
We will see a revolt in this country before people get out of bed in 
the morning to go and hand over 70 to 85 percent of their checks in 
taxation.
  We can not do that to the next generation. We can not impoverish them 
by taxing them against the wall. That is why the kindest thing that we 
could do for the next generation is to hand them a well-run country 
with low tax rates. We cannot spend our way into prosperity. That is 
something that Leader Boehner has said over and over again. My 
colleague from Georgia agrees with that. We cannot spend our way into 
prosperity. What we can do is look at the fundamentals of what works. 
This Harvard study from 2002 bears it out. This is how you do it:
  You cut government wages. You cut transfer payments. You do not 
increase taxes. Under this current stimulus bill, there is no provision 
for payment for this $1 trillion in expenditures. The day will come 
when we have to pay this bill, and it will come sooner than anyone 
thinks. That is what we are concerned about today.
  We have to be adults now. We are Representatives in Congress. We have 
to be adults with people's money. We cannot just spend money without 
thinking through how it is going to be paid for, and I think it is 
important that the American people realize that this Congress has not 
made provisions for paying for this party, and it is the 20- to 25-
year-olds, in the mother of all ironies, who will be the ones to pay 
for this bill.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I am going to finish up 
on this very important subject, Mr. Speaker. I want to save some time 
for the other issue that I want to discuss, and I hope Representative 
Bachmann will be able to stay with me for a little while longer because 
I know this is something that is very near and dear to her heart as 
well.
  In conclusion, when the Democrats--Mr. Speaker, your party--took 
control in the 110th Congress and when Madam Speaker became the first 
female Speaker in the history of this body, it was an exciting time. I 
think we were all excited. Obviously, we Republicans would have 
preferred the Speaker to be our minority leader, John Boehner, but 
certainly we had to tip our hat to Nancy Pelosi for that historic 
occasion. You could not ignore her words and what she had said and what 
her promises were, particularly during the campaign in 2006 that led up 
to that historic win and to the new Democratic majority:
  It is going to be a new day. It is not going to be the same old 
bipartisan stuff. We are going to make sure the minority has an 
opportunity to participate. We have been in the minority for 12 years, 
and it has been a little painful. We feel like we have been shut out. 
We have not been able to have amendments. There have been too many 
closed rules, and there have been too many bills brought to the floor 
without going through the regular process, without going through 
subcommittee and committee and the Rules Committee and without 
amendments made in order and without giving Members on both sides of 
the aisle, who might not have been on the committee of jurisdiction, an 
opportunity to weigh in.
  That is the right way. That is the way, Mr. Speaker, that I and 
Michele Bachmann and everybody in this Chamber discuss it with our 
youngsters, whether they're from middle school, high school or whether 
they're in their first year of college, when we're talking about 
government and civics and about how things are done.
  Speaking of process, I want to take just a minute and describe the 
comparison now in the way we Republicans did an energy bill back in 
2005--in fact,

[[Page H1232]]

the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Listen to this, Mr. Speaker:
  Hearings and subcommittee markups. The Energy and Commerce Committee 
held eight public hearings and six subcommittee markups, consuming 29 
hours and 10 minutes of public consideration, followed by the full 
committee markup. The full markup consumed a total of 24 hours during 
which time 86 amendments were considered. I am sure 86 amendments were 
not just from one side of the aisle. Then there was the conference 
committee on this bill.
  In advance of the formal conference committee meeting, Representative 
Joe Barton, the gentleman from Texas, who was the chairman of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, and Representative John Dingell, the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan whom we honored today because of 
his longevity and wonderful service to this body, were on the 
conference committee. There was a Democratic Senator and a Republican 
Senator, and they actually met. Now, this was not a faux pas conference 
committee. This was a real committee. They met eleven times for a total 
of 23 hours to create the basic text of legislation that would then be 
presented to the full conference committee.
  Finally, the formal House-Senate conference committee included 
Members from multiple House and Senate committees. It conducted five 
public sessions in the cavernous Energy and Commerce main hearing room 
during which 90 amendments were debated over a total of 20 hours.
  Now compare that to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
2009. This bill, this conference report that we're going to vote on 
tomorrow and that the Senate will vote on Friday: Hearings? 
Subcommittee markups? No hearings. No subcommittee markups. Full 
committee markup. The Energy and Commerce Committee spent 12 hours and 
considered 56 amendments. Three Republican amendments were made in 
order by the committee only to be immediately pulled out by the 
Speaker, so none of those amendments were made in order. The conference 
committee? Our ranking member, Joe Barton, who included Mr. Dingell on 
his conference committee for the energy bill that I talked about in 
2005, was not even on the committee. He was not even on the committee. 
Where is the bipartisanship?
  So the Speaker, I guess, and the Senate majority leader met in 
private to rewrite this stimulus package to come up with this final 
number. A total of two House Republicans were appointed to the 
conference committee, neither of them from the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, and I'm sure neither of them were called to any meeting. 
They were probably asked to sign the final conference report, which I 
fully trust that they did not.
  Of course, in conclusion, I will say, Mr. Speaker, that the process 
part of it is annoying and degrading. It is demeaning. It is 
disrespectful. It is hurtful to our constituents and to 48 percent of 
the American people. It does not help at all when the President of the 
United States says, hey, there was an election last November--and guess 
what? I won. Well, if that is the spirit of bipartisanship, I will have 
none of it. I want none of it. That is not exactly what I had in mind 
nor had any of my colleagues.
  Well, let me take a breath because I want to talk to you tonight, my 
colleagues, about something else that is troubling me.
  I said this at the outset. I was in church this past Sunday morning 
when our parish priest said to the parishioners--and I don't know 
whether my parish priest is a Republican or a Democrat. I have 
absolutely no idea. I know some of my pastors in the past have been 
Democrat because they've told me I am the only Republican they've ever 
voted for. So they weren't playing partisan politics from the pulpit.
  The parishioners at mass were asked to contact their House Member or 
their two Senators about something that was of great concern to the 
church community, and that was something called the Freedom of Choice 
Act. I know my colleague from Minnesota is very familiar with this. The 
bill was introduced in the last Congress, and my parish priest fears 
that it will be introduced again.
  What alerts them? What is their concern? Well, the concern is that 
President Obama, who is pro-choice, has already rescinded something 
called the Mexico City Policy.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, you all know what I'm talking about. 
The Mexico City Policy is a policy that we have had in place for the 
last 8 years. It was in place under President Reagan; it was rescinded 
by President Clinton, and now it has been rescinded by President Obama.

                              {time}  1945

  That policy prohibited any Federal tax dollars that went to 
international non-government organizations through our foreign aid 
appropriations bill. It prevented any money going to any of these 
organizations involving family planning activities if they performed or 
referred or advised for abortion knowing full well that most Americans 
don't want their hard-earned tax dollars to be spent on abortion, 
particularly overseas.
  And now President Obama has rescinded that policy. That money can be 
spent in that way.
  President Obama has also stated that he is going to rescind President 
Bush's restriction on using Federal dollars to destroy human life in 
the form of embryos at fertility clinics for the sole purpose of 
harvesting stem cells. I think that was a very good decision that 
President Bush made back in the summer of 2001 shortly before 9/11 
because it's not necessary. And that's what I've argued with my 
colleagues, Mr. Speaker, repeatedly.
  The science has brought us to the point now where we can get stem 
cells, adult stem cells, from many, many sources. We can get plural 
potential cells, and the success rate has been with harvesting those 
cells and not the cells that have been obtained from destroying human 
life.
  So this bill that was introduced in the last Congress called the 
Freedom of Choice Act, says this, Mr. Speaker, and I want my colleagues 
to listen very carefully: ``Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
that it is a policy of the United States that every woman has a 
fundamental right to choose to bear a child, also the fundamental right 
to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a 
pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or 
the health of the woman, and to restrict any State or local government 
from putting any limits on that whatsoever.''
  So that means basically, Mr. Speaker, that a woman at any stage of 
pregnancy--I mean, carrying an 8-month baby--could terminate that 
pregnancy.
  Now, we have laws in the State of Georgia that say after the period 
of viability, a pregnancy cannot be terminated without two additional 
consenting physicians to verify that this is an extreme medical 
necessity.
  But this would take any ability, any power of any State, away from 
them, and the Federal Government will say a woman has a right to 
choose. That right includes not only to terminate her pregnancy in the 
first trimester, not only to terminate her pregnancy in the second 
trimester, but even in the third trimester when you're talking about 
maybe even a 6-pound child if someone just says, ``Well, you know, 
we're doing this because we're concerned about the health of the 
mother.''
  And the health of the mother can be a case of panic attack, a sleep 
disorder, an episode of anxiety, you know. So we are very concerned 
about that.
  And I wanted to ask my colleague from Minnesota to be with me tonight 
to help bring this issue, Mr. Speaker, to our colleagues to really kind 
of tug at your heart strings and at your conscience and help you to 
understand that we--it looks like that we may be heading in that 
direction. God forbid, Mr. Speaker, it looks like with the policies 
that have been enacted thus far in the pronouncements of the new 
President, that we may be headed in that direction.
  I'd like to yield to my colleague on this.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank my colleague, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia. I think 
he has every reason to be very concerned about this Freedom of Choice 
Act coming before this body, the House of Representatives, and the 
Senate.
  Why? Because during the campaign, the President stated quite clearly 
that

[[Page H1233]]

he wanted the Freedom of Choice Act to be the first piece of 
legislation that he would sign as President. So important to this pro-
abortion President is the issue of the Freedom of Choice Act, he wanted 
to make that the signature item of his Presidency.
  It's a cruel statement to make to the children of this country 
because there's a lie that's been perpetrated over the years since the 
1960s. Planned Parenthood has said ``every child, a wanted child;'' 
which, by implication, means that if a mother does not want the child, 
it's better to kill the child than to allow that child to receive life.
  But I can attest to the fact that I believe every child in the United 
States and across the world is a wanted child because there are arms 
that are open and waiting of childless parents all across this country 
who would love to receive a child, but children just aren't available 
for adoption.
  My husband and I are fortunate enough to have 5 children born to us, 
and we were also fortunate to have 23 foster children come into our 
home. We were delighted to take at-risk children into our home, 
thrilled that we could have that opportunity. There are people all 
across this country who would also like to have that opportunity.
  It is horrific to know that in the African American community, 50 
percent of all African American pregnancies in the United States end in 
abortion, 50 percent. That is a genocide of African Americans of the 
United States. It should not be. There are Americans all across this 
country who would love to adopt African American babies, but they can't 
because 50 percent of all African American pregnancies today are ending 
in abortion.
  What would the Freedom of Choice Act do? Very simply, it's this: It 
would eviscerate, it would take away every State and local restriction 
that there is today on abortion--reasonable restrictions, restrictions 
like making sure every woman has the right to know what options are 
available to her, to know what is an abortion, what does it mean. For 
women who have the opportunity to see their unborn child on an 
ultrasound machine, it's an earthshaking experience to see your baby, 
your flesh and blood, moving on an ultrasound machine.
  It takes a woman, it takes the father of that baby to think of what 
this means. This is human life, and it causes them to want to choose 
life and give life to that unborn child.
  Reasonable restrictions have been passed all across this country in 
many hard-fought battles, and 35 years of effort from the pro-life 
community would be extinguished just like that. But that's what our 
President wants to have happen. He wants to take away any pro-life 
opportunity available from American women.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Reclaiming my time just for a second because 
I had a little difficulty pulling up the bill.
  But this is what Representative Bachmann is talking about, and this 
is what the bill says. ``A government may not''--a government may not--
``number 1, deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose, (a) to 
bear a child, (b) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability''--that's 
probably about 24 weeks of life--or (c) to terminate a pregnancy after 
24 weeks of life, viability, ``where termination is necessary to 
protect the life or the health of the woman.''
  And then it goes on to say a government may not ``discriminate 
against the exercise of these rights set forth'' in that paragraph ``in 
the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or 
information.''
  Just like the gentlelady from Minnesota was talking about. Let them 
see an ultrasound. Why not? It's being taken anyway. Why shouldn't they 
have the opportunity to see it?
  Well, I want to thank, first of all, my colleague for being with me 
this evening. Two important issues. I thank Mr. Speaker for his 
indulgence.
  Let's be thinking, men and women, and ask God for the wisdom of 
Socrates as we debate and make decisions on these terribly important 
issues facing our Nation and our people.
  With that, I yield back my time.

                          ____________________