[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H1282-H1289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
200TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIRTH OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I appreciate so much the privilege
to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the House of
Representatives on this 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham
Lincoln.
I've watched, of course, Lincoln's life and history from the
perspective of actually a youth who was pointed out to me by my family
back in those years. So I have always paid a lot of attention to
Abraham Lincoln.
As our 16th President of the United States, the man who saved the
Union--who did a lot of things--but a man who saved the Union, kept us
from being forever divided. I played a little with the history and the
question of that. What would have happened if the Civil War would have
ended with a division rather than the unity of the United States of
America?
All history that flows from that date--from the 1860s--of this
country, would be changed. The history of any involvement that we might
have had during the Spanish-American conflict; during World War II; as
we heard, from Judge Poe; World War II; Korea; Vietnam, all of the
wars, but also the geopolitics, the economy. We would not have become
the preeminent economic power in the world if Abraham Lincoln hadn't
come along and this Nation hadn't been blessed with him at the time it
was.
His perseverance to save the Union has positioned this Nation to go
forward to a level of destiny I believe unimagined by our Founding
Fathers and unimagined by Abraham Lincoln himself.
One cannot say enough about what Abraham Lincoln did for this country
or for the free world, Madam Speaker. But here we are today, on the
200th anniversary of his birth, celebrating these two centuries of
prosperity that we've had, and I mean the prosperity of liberty, the
prosperity of freedom, the prosperity of the Union holding together,
and the constitutional point being preserved that this is an
indissolvable Union of the States, of the several States and, today, of
the 50 States, Madam Speaker.
I can't help but reflect that today is the day that it was planned by
our current President of the United States, President Obama, to bring
this huge spending stimulus package to the floor of the House of
Representatives for what they anticipated and hoped would be a final
passage vote of the conference report here in the House so that the
bill may or may not have been handled by the Senate today, but so it
had the chance to at least have been passed in this Chamber--this
Chamber--where Abraham Lincoln served one term before he went back and
went through some political bumps in the road and then became President
of the United States.
And one can walk through those doors and down the hallway and stand
[[Page H1283]]
on the brass plate, the very spot where Abraham Lincoln's desk was when
he served this country in this United States House of Representatives,
where we are today, Madam Speaker.
Abraham Lincoln, the man who saved the Union, the man who stood on
constitutional principles, the man who abhorred slavery but still
understood that the language in the Constitution allowed for it. The
man who cleared the way so we could pass the 13th and 14th and 15th
amendments. The man who made it possible that we could have
constitutional protection for rights of all men, and later paved the
way for the rights of all women. Abraham Lincoln, Madam Speaker.
Abraham Lincoln, his ghost is with us, his spirit is with us today.
But this was the day that the man who's postured himself as a second
Lincoln wanted to see this massive stimulus plan come to this floor for
a final passage.
It's not going to happen today, Madam Speaker. And I'm grateful it's
not going to happen today because for me to hold back my tears thinking
about what that says about the memory of Abraham Lincoln, to move an
agenda that is a massive, irresponsible spending agenda to the floor of
the House as a way of commemorating and connecting the 44th President
of the United States, who is from Illinois, with the 16th President of
the United States, who was a conservative from Illinois who stood for
these constitutional principles. I can't think how they can be any
further apart from a monetary perspective, Abraham Lincoln and
President Obama, than what we see here today.
Abraham Lincoln was a conservative, Madam Speaker. Abraham Lincoln
was a constitutionalist. Abraham Lincoln was on a strong national
defense. Abraham Lincoln believed a series of things that I think this
Chamber needs to hear about. And they don't fit very well with the
legislation that has been pushed out of the White House today, or with
the legislation that has been pushed from the Speaker's office.
And so, Madam Speaker, Lincoln--Lincoln, the conservative; Lincoln,
the objective person who believed in personal responsibility; Lincoln,
the man who was credited with saying, You can't help the poor by
punishing the rich, You can't help the weak by weakening the strong;
the whole series of those other statements made by President Lincoln--
and here we are with this massive spending bill, this $838 billion
spending bill. And when you add the interest on it, it has been back
down now to something like $791 billion in the negotiations. And you
add the interest on it and you come to $1.138 trillion sitting today in
a conference report that is being printed, we think, with the idea that
America's economy will be stimulated if we just spend enough money.
John Maynard Keynes wasn't born in time to influence Abraham
Lincoln's philosophy. If he had been, I do not think he would have
found favor with Abraham Lincoln or the cabinet. But Keynes was a
contemporary of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Keynes did advocate that
spending money stimulated the economy. Just by the virtue of spending
the money, it stimulated the economy.
And so the simplest way to describe that would be--first, I need to
tie this together. That President Obama has often articulated his
belief that spending money stimulates the economy. He has said that--
and the language is, ``Stimulus is spending,'' if we remember his angry
speech the other day. ``Stimulus is spending.''
And so he's advocated this spending as if it doesn't matter where it
goes, it just matters the size of it. And as I've listened to him
speak, my disagreement is I don't believe the New Deal worked. His
argument is that if FDR would have just not lost his nerve, if FDR,
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, father of the New Deal, which has directly
reflected the policies promoted by John Maynard Keynes, if FDR had just
spent enough money, the New Deal would have gotten us out of the
Depression. Well, Madam Speaker, it didn't get us out of the
Depression.
And the President, the current President, President Obama, has said
that we are going to grow this economy by spending. Stimulus is
spending. And indexing it into this belief of Keynes. Here's what
Keynes said. ``When it comes to public works, the more wasteful, the
better.'' Because if you waste a lot of money spending it on public
works, at least you're not competing directly with the private sector
and taking away the things they might be doing that actually stimulate
the economy. That private sector is generally the productive sector of
the economy, Madam Speaker.
And, Keynes went on. Now, remember, this is at the basis, the
foundation for FDR's New Deal, which is the basis for Barack Obama's
new ``new deal,'' this uber new deal that hangs out above us today,
that seems to have been at least temporarily suspended by the image of
Abraham Lincoln and maybe the conscience of Abraham Lincoln, holding
this thing back, maybe for another day, maybe longer.
{time} 1700
Here is what Keynes said: If the Treasury were to fill old bottles
with bank notes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal mines
which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it
to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez fair to dig
the notes up again, there need be no more unemployment.
Keynes said if we would just print a lot of Federal money and put it
in bottles and go to the coal mine and bury it in the ground, and then
dump the coal mine full of garbage and step back and watch the flurry
of activity, that we would solve unemployment. That seems to be the
approach that is brought today. It brings to mind for me the movie that
the Beatles published some years ago, Magic Christian. If you remember
the scene in Magic Christian where there was all kinds of garbage and
refuse and just revolting material dumped into this swimming pool along
with a lot of money, and there you had greedy people diving into the
swimming pool and fighting each other for the money to get their hands
on it. The same image: Keynes, the Beatles, Magic Christian; Keynes,
FDR, Barack Obama. Their economic policy is the same. Nancy Pelosi's
economic policy, the same.
We are here today doing all we can to hold back this disaster that is
intergenerational theft of hundreds of billions of dollars cumulating
into multiple trillions of dollars that are debt that we will not pay
in our lifetime but will be debt that is passed along to our children
and grandchildren. And if we saddle this economy, they may not be able
to pay it in their lifetime, even if they come to the senses that we
can't seem to get in a majority on the floor of this House.
I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri. I am looking
forward to the input that he would have on this economic issue, Mr.
Akin, such time as he may consume.
Mr. AKIN. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate your comments. And
I think that, as we have been trying to discover more and more what is
in the bill; now, it is a secret what is in the bill, in spite of the
discussions about transparency and the chance that people will have a
48-hour window to actually read what is in the bill. Yet, the bill we
still have not seen it. There have been people out saying, well, here
is the deal we cut. But in terms of transparency and 48 hours, that of
course was just campaign rhetoric, apparently.
But what it seems like, as we look more and more at this thing, is
that this is really a form of financial infanticide, because what we
are going to be doing is burdening not only our children but our
grandchildren.
But I would like to back up just a minute on the gentleman from Iowa,
a man that has been a small business owner, a great Congressman, and a
great commonsense guy, and I want to just sort of back up because there
is two theories about how to treat the situation. And I think it is
important that we state that, as a Republican, and I believe you as a
Republican gentleman, believe that this is a serious situation that we
are facing.
At a town hall meeting, a little girl stood up and she said, ``My
daddy just lost his job from 40 hours to 24 hours. Is there anything in
this bill that is going to help my daddy?'' And the answer to that
question is, ``no.'' And that is exactly the reason why we have to vote
``no,'' because it doesn't solve the problem.
Now, there are two theories about how you approach the situation that
[[Page H1284]]
our economy faces right now. And one of them, this word Keynesian,
which is some old musty historical guy, some Lord Keynes from England,
I suppose, and he had a theory that was convenient for government
people; and that was, the more government money you spend, the better
off you are. And the guy who really tried that theory, worked for FDR.
He was Secretary of the Treasury. His name was Henry Morgenthau.
Henry Morgenthau went out and, boy, did he spend money. And he did
just exactly what the Democrats are doing he said that they want to do,
and that is to build schools and to do all of these different public
works projects. And at the end of 8 years, he appeared before the Ways
and Means Committee. Now, this guy was doing Keynesian economics before
Keynes even made it popular.
At the end of 8 years he appears in the Congress here before the Ways
and Means Committee and he says, ``It did not work.'' He said, ``We
have spent money and spent money for 8 years, and I am telling you, it
does not work. The unemployment is just as bad now as it was 8 years
ago, and, to boot, we have a tremendous debt.'' Now, that was our first
experiment with the idea that you just go out and spend tons of money
and everything is going to be okay.
Now, I don't know too many households in America, Congressman King,
that have such a lack of common sense that when their family budget
gets in trouble, that they go buy a brand-new car, take out a second
loan on their house, buy a motorboat, and just go spend money to make
it better. There are not too many people that have that little common
sense. And yet, right here in Washington, D.C., we seem to have all of
them that doesn't have any common sense ready to jump on this idea that
just spending a whole lot of money is going to make the problem better.
Now, we haven't even talked about what we are spending the money on
yet. The theory is that we are going to do stimulative things, such as
building roads and bridges and stuff, which in fact most of this bill
has nothing to do with that at all, just expanding entitlements. I
really don't understand how millions and millions of dollars spent on
sexually transmitted disease education is really going to put people to
work.
But aside from that, I just wanted to mention one other thing, and
that is something that is a problem of scale. Sometimes numbers get so
many zeroes behind them that people get a little batty and don't
realize what they are talking about. So let's try and put this $800
billion into perspective. And it is not $800 billion; it is going to be
more than $1 trillion, because what this does is it commits us to all
kinds of additional spending which it is not going to stay anywhere
near. But let's just say we talk about $800 billion. What does that
mean?
Well, one of the things we have heard for the last 7 years is all of
the money that we have wasted on the war in Iraq and how much money the
war in Afghanistan has cost us. So let's start, first of all, go back
to the beginning of the war in Afghanistan 7 years ago, the beginning
of the war in Iraq 6 years ago, let's add it all up. Add all of those
two wars up from the beginning of when they started, and it is less
than what is in this bill. So that 800-some billion dollars, that is a
pretty fair amount of money.
Let's put it in other terms. Let's picture, we now currently have 11
aircraft carriers in the military. Those are considered the most
valuable assets, other than just the American cities that we have. We
really try to protect our 11 aircraft carriers. How many aircraft
carriers could we build for $800 billion? Well, if we got them at the
old price, about 250. Can you picture 250 aircraft carriers end to end?
But let's say we get the newest, most fancy brand-new aircraft
carriers. Still, even with no discount for buying a large number, we
are talking 100 aircraft carriers. The debt service in one year on this
$800 billion would buy us 9 aircraft carriers.
And so what are we going to do? We are talking about protecting mice
in the Speaker's district, and we are talking about all of these things
that have nothing to do other than just spending a whole lot of
government money.
So, first of all, the question is: Does spending a lot of money do
any good? And the answer is: Historically, the Japanese tried it and it
didn't work for them, either, any better than it did for FDR. They
turned a recession into a depression using this theory.
And so what the common sense is, the Federal Government has got to
stop spending so much money. That isn't too complicated. People are
saying Republicans don't have an answer. We have got an answer: Don't
spend all this money. What part of ``don't spend money'' don't you
understand? It seems so simple. Everybody else in America can figure it
out. Why can't we figure it out?
We don't want to spend a lot of money. What we want to do is we want
to let the capital, the money, remain with the people that actually
create the jobs. Don't we?
And I see that you have got a number of other really qualified people
to join you on this hour. I just thank you for taking the time to try
to get the truth out on a bill that is still smoke and mirrors.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, and thanking the gentleman from
Missouri for his many hours here and for his many hours in front and
behind the scenes standing up for our American values. It triggers in
my memory how much money an aircraft carrier can be built for.
Bloomberg reported on Monday that if you add up the commitments that
the United States has made within the last year in economic stimulus
plan in one kind or another, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
including the rebate check, including the $700 billion bailout, the
risk in Fannie and Freddie and these bailouts, it comes to $9.7
trillion. That is with a ``T.'' And if we applied the $9.7 trillion to
the home mortgages in America, it would pay off 90 percent of the home
mortgages in America. That is how much money is at risk here,
taxpayers' money, the people's money in this country, Madam Speaker.
I would be so happy to yield so much time as she might want to
utilize to the gentlelady from Minnesota, Mrs. Bachmann.
Mrs. BACHMANN. And I want to thank the stunning representative from
Iowa, Mr. King, who is putting this effort together for this hour.
There are many of my colleagues who are here, and many more who want to
join and add their words to the wonderful repertoire we are having this
evening.
As Mr. King had mentioned, it is absolutely true; as we look at the
risk that we put the American taxpayer at, we are looking at
essentially $9.7 trillion of potential risk.
One fact you mentioned, that potentially 90 percent of all home
mortgages could be completely paid off with that amount of money. Here
is another fact. You could take that $9.7 trillion that the American
taxpayer is on the hook for, and you could write a check today to every
man, woman, and child in the world for $1,430. That is how much money
we are on the hook for.
And the reason why I wanted to have the opportunity to stand up right
now; my husband and I have been married 30 years, we have 5 biological
kids, and we have been blessed to have 23 foster kids. I can't look my
22-year-old in the eye and say to him, ``Harrison, this stimulus is
good for you and good for your generation.'' Why? Because I know for a
fact that just the Social Security burden alone, the unfunded net
liability that the next generation will owe just on Social Security
will equal 25 percent of their income when they come into their prime
earning years. That is before this level of spending.
We are looking at $1 trillion in spending. $1 trillion just in
stimulus spending is equal to the entire amount of money that we have
in currency, in the currency today, in the United States. This is an
enormous amount of money. And that doesn't include the $2 trillion that
the Federal Reserve has also just been in the process of promising this
week. We had a $3 trillion day here in Washington, D.C. just a couple
of days ago.
But the great news is that we do have an answer to these economic
doldrums. Republicans don't disagree that there is a problem. There is
a tremendous problem. But we also know the solution.
How do we know? Well, there is a Harvard long-term study that was
completed in 2002, and it said very simply this, ``After studying 18
economies, we
[[Page H1285]]
know what the answer is to increasing economic competitiveness. It is
this: Governments need to cut government wages and they need to cut
transfer payments, which are welfare payments.'' How do you
characterize a downturned economy? Very simply: Increase taxes.
We know what the solution is. Imagine if last year, under the
Democrat controlled Congress and under President Bush, had we chosen to
reject $1 trillion in new spending, and instead had we put in place
permanent tax cuts in the capital gains tax, zeroing that out, cutting
the corporate tax rate down to 9 percent, cutting marginal tax rates
for every American, our problem this year would be finding enough
workers to fill the jobs.
There is a reason why we aren't seeing an investment in the United
States; it is because we are currently the second highest tax rate,
corporate tax rate, in the world. We can change that very quickly. And
now when the rest of the globe is in economic doldrums, wouldn't it be
a pleasure to have the United States be the best climate for
investment? We can do that.
That is what the Republican plan aims to do. That is what all of us
are down here tonight to offer that positive solution to the American
people.
We are going to hear a lot about how bad this bill is. In fact, we
know it is bad, because Senator Judd Gregg just announced that he is
withdrawing his name for consideration as Commerce Secretary under
President Obama for two reasons: One being that the stimulus package is
so bad he can't be associated with it; and, number two, he is so
outraged that the current Obama White House has taken the Census out of
the Commerce Department, where it has historically been, and pulled it
into the White House for what we believe are obvious political reasons
that he has said, ``I can't abide by this. I am gone.''
That is why we are here tonight. That is why I commend you,
Representative King, for holding this forum, because we know we have
solutions that work. And, after all, the American people deserve no
less. And I thank you.
{time} 1715
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota for the quick
mind that she has and the background that she has not only as a tax
attorney, but also as a mother and a foster parent. She is someone who
has also plied the trade and understands taxes and the incentives that
are involved. She has been involved in the private sector for many
years starting and operating businesses successfully. All of this
background gets threaded into the judgment that comes here. And that
was how it was envisioned, that we would bring our skills from our
private life to this Congress and work together.
The stimulus package, I might add, Madam Speaker, is not one of
those. It didn't benefit from one side of the aisle here. It didn't
have the bipartisan negotiations. It didn't really reflect the free
market attitudes of the Republicans. It only reflects the grow
government, grow entitlement and grow the dependency philosophy of
Democrats. And part of me says, well, if it is going to be one or the
other, then let the people decide. And if they can't decide for
allowing for a legitimate debate and amendment process here on the
floor of the House, then perhaps they will decide in the next election,
Madam Speaker. And that is what this is about is making this case. I'm
very well aware of the inertia that is there. But I still say, maybe,
maybe the image of Abraham Lincoln is holding this disastrous stimulus
plan back. Maybe America will come to pass and actually people will
wake up tomorrow morning having had an epiphany and come to their
senses that spending money for the sake of spending money is the
equivalent, as Keynes said, of digging a hole and burying it. And the
President said we're not just digging a hole and filling it back up.
But yes, we are. We are with about $2 out of every $3 in the stimulus
plan.
I recognize some Members here on the floor. Since I have spoken to
the Illinois issue, I have been looking forward to hearing from a son
of Illinois, since this is the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's
birth, the gentleman with all of the vigor that Illinois could muster
on any given day, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) for so
much time as he may consume.
Mr. MANZULLO. The Republicans have been offering an alternative to
this $800 billion stimulus. The Republican plan includes, among other
things, decreasing the lowest two income tax brackets by 5 percent,
which results in a $3,300 income tax cut for married couples, money
that you can use for any purpose that you want. And it includes a 20
percent tax deduction for small business income and a home buyers tax
credit of $7,500. A real stimulus means that the country needs to be
able to present something to the American people and say, look, here is
what you can do in order to restart the lines of production to get the
economy going again.
Mostly what we see is a trickle-down economy. And people from the
other side of the aisle don't like me to mention it because that was
associated with Reagan. But the trickle-down stimulus means you pour
money in from the top, and you use it as a bandage in hoping that
sometime the economy will recover and people will start buying again.
It doesn't work that way.
Let me give you an example of a trickle-up economy, an economic
stimulus, that is so simple. Two years ago, this Nation sold 17 million
new cars. Then that dropped to 10 million new automobiles. And at an
average price of $25,000 per vehicle, that means that there was $175
billion in direct sales of motor vehicles that simply vanished. If you
take that by any economic factor, three or seven, whatever it is, that
is $1 trillion that was deleted from our economy. And that has resulted
in hundreds of thousands of people not only directly involved in
manufacturing automobiles becoming unemployed, but the OEMs and the
people on supply lines, and in fact people such as Ron Bullard, who has
a place called Bison Gear in St. Charles, Illinois, just over the
congressional line from the district that I'm pleased to represent. And
Ron Bullard makes electrical motors. And a couple of years ago, he put
in two lines of equipment, Hoss equipment, proudly made in America. And
with those two lines, he is going head to head with the Chinese and the
Mexicans making a better and cheaper electric motor and serviced
locally. And many of those motors go into the manufacturing process.
And so when we look at the impact of the loss of orders in the
manufacturing cycle, we can't even begin to realize how big this is.
Take this example: If we gave a $5,000 voucher to every person who
wants to buy a brand new automobile, and we brought automobiles up to
the 15 million sold as opposed to the 17 million that were sold, the
total cost to the taxpayer is $75 billion. Well, that is a lot of
money. It is 15 times 25, 15 times $5,000 for the voucher. So somebody
could go into a Chrysler dealer, for example, and buy a brand new Jeep
Patriot proudly made in the 16th Congressional District, which I serve,
and instead of paying $20,000 for it, you pay $15,000, a little under
$300 for 5 years.
There are enough people working in America today that would love to
buy a brand new automobile at 20 to 25 to 15 percent off. It is a quick
turn-around. You exchange the VIN numbers on the cars for a $5,000
check coming directly from Treasury to the automobile dealer. And what
does that do? It gets rid of the cars that are on the floors of the
automobile dealers. It gets rid of the cars that are sitting on the
lots of the manufacturers. People go back to work making more
automobiles. People come off unemployment compensation and start paying
income tax. And when people start buying automobiles, State and local
sales tax coffers start up again. OEMs put their people back to work.
We need to restart the entire supply chain of manufacturing in
America for us to have the opportunity to come out of this economic
doldrums, or whatever word we want to find for this recession. That is
trickle-up economics. The voucher goes directly for the intended
purpose. People go back to work. The economy gets restarted. This is
what we need as part of the Republican stimulus. This is what America
needs.
What is the cost to restart manufacturing to sell 15 million cars in
America? Seventy-five billion dollars. That is a lot of money, but it
is a long, long way from the $800 billion in spending, very little of
which is related to stimulating the economy.
[[Page H1286]]
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Illinois and appreciate
listening to him.
I have listened also to the President of the United States. And one
of the pieces of this recovery package as he describes it and in the
stimulus package as some others describe it and the ``porkulous''
package as others describe it, is that there would be no earmarks. I
remember the Presidential campaign. I remember John McCain and Barack
Obama both taking the pledge that there would be no earmarks in their
administration.
And I want to point out that President Obama made the point
specifically about this recovery package that there would be no
earmarks. And he said, ``we will ban all earmarks in the recovery
package.'' I'm quoting the President of the United States. ``And I
describe earmarks as the process by which individual Members insert pet
projects without review. So what I'm saying is, we're not having
earmarks in the recovery package, period.'' That is the clear statement
the President of the United States recently made within the context of
this recovery package.
And so, Madam Speaker, I brought along this little poster to
illustrate how a deal doesn't long stay a deal. We've already heard
that we were going to have a bill up for 48 hours for public scrutiny
before it would come to the floor for a vote. That looks like that is a
thing of the past. Remember the language, ``individual Members will not
be inserting pet projects without review. So what I'm saying is, we're
not having earmarks in the recovery package, period,'' Barack Obama.
Well, Madam Speaker, here we have a pet, a mouse, a pet project, a
pet project of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. This little
mouse here, a desert mouse, I don't know what he is, a sand mouse, it
is a mouse that Nancy Pelosi has been seeking to create habitat for for
some time. It is her pet project, this pet mouse.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Would the gentleman yield? It is
a salt marsh mouse, a salt marsh mouse from San Francisco.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman. Hopefully I didn't offend
the mouse. He is a salt marsh mouse, a salt marsh mouse from
California, and conservatives are more numerous, I recognize. However,
this $30 million is an earmark in the stimulus plan, in the recovery
plan. It is a direct violation of the mark laid down by the President
of the United States that there wouldn't be any special projects set up
by individual Members, period. No earmarks. Well, here is $30 million
for the salt marsh water mouse of California. This mouse, who has not
affected my life in any way whatsoever, but will affect yours soon,
because we will be paying taxes, interest and debt on this $30 million
mouse.
Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I would yield.
Ms. FOXX. I think specifically the money is for those mice in San
Francisco, California, not just California, but specifically San
Francisco, California.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady. I would hope they would not
be San Franciscan monk mice. But I appreciate they are salt marsh mice
with San Francisco leanings.
And I might say also if you take a look at this mouse real closely,
there has got to be an earmark right there in that mouse. The salt
marsh mouse with San Francisco leanings, not a monk mouse, has an
earmark in him. And it is a $30 million notch punched in there that is
identified by the Speaker of the House, who has taken positions against
earmarks, but has not apparently sworn off them for herself. And so
this is just one piece.
This is $30 million out of what is over $1 trillion stimulus package,
a porkulous package. This is just a symbol of what we're up against.
And by the way, nobody has seen the draft of this bill yet. We only see
the reports on the discussions that leak out of the rooms where it is
being drafted. It is not going to be hanging up on the Web for 48
hours. It is not going to have the scrutiny of the public. It is simply
going to be a bill that is written in the dark and rushed to the floor
under a rule that doesn't allow open discussion beyond a limited amount
of debate on the rules and a limited amount of debate on the conference
report.
So, since we have had a good look at this salt marsh mouse, and we
have had a good look at his earmark, I think it is important to go to
someone from California who knows a little bit about conservatives in
California who I think hopefully are not an endangered species like the
salt marsh mouse, the gentleman, Mr. McClintock, from California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding. Being
from California, I do have to note how frustrating it is to see the
same folly that has brought California to the brink of insolvency now
being practiced here in the seat of our national government. After all,
there are still 49 other States that Californians can move to if the
left succeeds in bankrupting California. If they succeed in bankrupting
America, I wonder where we will all move.
We've had a lot of fun tonight with the salt marsh mouse. He is about
to be a very wealthy mouse. I think it is also important for us to note
that this Congress is on the eve of a momentous decision, a decision
that is going to follow us and follow our children many, many years
into the future.
I particularly want to compliment the gentleman from Iowa for taking
to the floor tonight on the eve of this vote to try again to sound the
alarm to our fellow Americans of what is at stake. And I again want to
urge the majority to consider very carefully the damage that they are
doing to our Nation's economy by passing this unprecedented spending
bill. There is still time, fleeting time, to heed the warnings from
economists across the Nation that this bill will do long-term damage to
the growth of our Nation's economy for many years to come. This is not
mere economic theory, Madam Speaker. It is the consistent effect every
time and everywhere that a government has tried to spend its way to
prosperity.
{time} 1730
Tonight history is shouting its warnings at us. Never has a nation
spent its way to prosperity, and many nations have spent their way to
ruin and to collapse. If government bailouts and handouts and loan
guarantees actually worked, we should today be enjoying a period of
unprecedented economic expansion. After all, we began down this road
more than a year ago with the failed Bush stimulus plan, and now we
have squandered or placed at risk some $9.7 trillion; as the gentleman
said earlier, enough to buy up 90 percent of all the mortgages in
America, not 90 percent of the bad mortgages, 90 percent of all the
mortgages.
Another way to look at that, as an economist pointed out recently, is
that that figure vastly exceeds the modern-day inflation adjusted cost
of the Space Race, the Vietnam War, the Marshall Plan, the Louisiana
Purchase, and the New Deal combined. The problem is, this policy
doesn't work.
Now, we've been told from a residence about a mile from here, not to,
``come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that
helped to create this crisis.''
And yet, Madam Speaker, that is exactly what this administration and
this Congress are now doing. This is exactly the same policy that the
Bush administration pursued for more than a year, to no avail, and
we're hearing the same tired rhetoric to justify it. Different singer,
same tired old song.
At best, the proponents of this policy are trading a fleeting
economic surge for a sustained, chronic and long-term reduction in
economic growth. And there's a simple reason for that.
The $800 billion that they have to borrow just to finance this single
bill, let alone all of the other trillions of dollars that they have
either spent or placed at risk, that $800 billion they have to borrow
for this plan comes from exactly the same capital pool that would
otherwise have been available to loan to employers seeking to add jobs,
or home buyers seeking to buy homes, or to consumers seeking to buy
consumer goods. They're literally taking $800 billion from loans that
could have been made to expand the economy, and shifting them to loans
that are going merely to expand government. And that $800 billion, plus
interest, will have to be repaid from the future earnings of American
families, directly sapping the future economic growth of our Nation.
[[Page H1287]]
On average, this single measure will reduce the disposable income of
every taxpaying family by more than $7,000. Now, instead of reducing
their disposable income by $7,000, maybe we ought to consider
increasing their disposable income by reducing their tax burdens now.
That's what the Republican alternative proposes, a plan that economists
tell us will produce twice the jobs as the President's plan, at half
the cost.
And to those who doubt that, listen to the President's own numbers.
He's repeatedly promised that the $800 billion in this bill will create
or save as many as 4 million jobs. That comes to $200,000 per job. We
could literally save half of what he has proposed spending if we were
to send $100,000 checks to each of those 4 million lucky families.
That's by the President's own numbers.
Now, nobody here suggests the government should do nothing in the
face of this terrible recession. But this plan is actually worse than
doing nothing, because it robs us of our economic future.
Madam Speaker, perhaps we need to add the Hippocratic Oath to the
oaths of office for the President and the Congress. First do no harm.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from California. And picking
up on the point that you've made so succinctly, the projection, as
reported this morning, is that this ``porkulus'' plan will create or
save 3,675,000 thousand jobs. And the formula is that, this is a rule
of thumb formula that's also used by the Federal Reserve, that if you
spend enough money to increase the Gross Domestic Product by 1 percent,
that equates into roughly 1 million new jobs. So if you increase it by
3.675 percent, by spending money, whether you dig a hole and bury it in
the coal mine, as we talked earlier, wherever it goes, that's the rule
of thumb.
And I'd point out also that the President has taken this position
that it's create or save. Well, anything can save a job. Doing nothing
would save jobs. And this formula that's only indexed back to a loose
idea that investing, spending money, just spending money creates jobs,
that's all it is. It's just that formula, that rule of thumb.
And looking at the order of arrival on the floor, I think it might be
appropriate to hear a little from Texas before we go back to the other
coast. And I'd appreciate it if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert),
my good friend, would illuminate us with some of his wisdom.
Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Iowa for yielding.
This is a deeply troubling time. And all of us know people who have
lost their jobs and people who are endangered.
I got the message just earlier that Lone Star Steel shares a lot of
employees in my district and Ralph Hall's districts, that, as I
understand it, they were holding out, hoping that there would be true
stimulus would be coming so that they could keep people working. But
they've apparently indicated today they're letting 1,200 people go,
suspending their employment.
It appears, we've been hearing over and over from the Democratic
leadership, and even from the President, people are losing jobs every
day. And if this stimulus, so-called stimulus package, ``spendulous''
package, if it were really providing hope, then people wouldn't have
been losing their jobs for the last year. They just wouldn't. People
would have held on and said, the hope, the change, the help is coming
that's going to help us keep providing jobs and open up new jobs and
save these jobs. But they're getting it. And every day, people are
being laid off because everything they've heard about the ultimate
spending package is not providing hope.
There's no hope. There's no change in this bill. It's a massive
spending bill. And much of it, we'd heard before, is going to be spent
in the next, well, 2 years or more from now. So that's very
disconcerting.
We were told that the reason that we had to have someone who had
cheated on his taxes be made the Treasury Secretary was because he had
worked hand in hand with Secretary Paulson. Well, to me, that was a
good reason not to confirm him, that he had worked with Secretary
Paulson. Good grief. That did no good as far as we can tell.
And then he announced his plan yesterday, and he was so stirring and
so uplifting, the market immediately fell nearly 400 points.
But I did a town hall meeting, and I guess that was Tuesday maybe he
announced that. But I did a telephone meeting with some people, and a
lady from my district, Ms. Maxwell, has just retired from the IRS. And
she said there are lots of IRS agents who are outraged, but they work
for the IRS still and they don't want to lose their job so they're not
going to say anything.
But the fact is, she said, when you work for the IRS, if you make a
mistake on your income tax, you're gone. She said that she had gotten
$600, she'd won $600 at a casino in Shreveport, and she forgot to
report it by the end of the year. And they were going to fire her
because she forgot to list it. Immediately, when she remembered, she
amended the return right after she'd filed it. But the thing that saved
her was she had overpaid her taxes, so she didn't owe money that had to
be paid back, that she overpaid. And she said, so her supervisor went
to battle for her, and she just barely was able to keep her job, and
then just recently retired.
Every IRS agent is expected to make no mistakes on their, and
especially intentional, like Geithner signed that form saying, I
certify I will pay all the taxes if you just give me the money. And he
didn't do it. And now he's in charge.
The market doesn't have confidence in him. It keeps going down the
more he talks. He was not indispensable as we were told by this
administration. As my former pastor used to say, the cemetery is full
of indispensable people. We needed somebody who was a leader, not
somebody that cheated or was completely negligent on his taxes. And so
we're not getting the leadership we need.
But people, in the meantime, are hurting. We have proposals that
would stimulate the economy, and it galls me to no end to see this kind
of throwing money at the problem, and not trusting the American people,
the real power behind this country, to do what will be necessary to
save the country.
And, in fact, what we have here is an atmosphere of arrogance in
Washington that says you can't trust the American people. We don't want
them to have their own tax dollars back because they might not spend it
the way we want them to. And that's why Senator Kerry said here, ``But
a tax cut is non-targeted. You put a tax cut into the hands of either a
business or an individual today, there is no guarantee they are going
to invest their money. There is no guarantee they are going to invest
their money in the United States. They are free to invest anywhere they
want, they choose to invest it.'' That was just a few days ago by
Senator Kerry.
The bottom line is, they don't trust the American people to use their
own money. A tax holiday for two or 3 months with people getting their
own money back, let them save the economy. They can do it.
This plan is a disaster, and it's not fair to the American people.
I appreciate my friend yielding.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time and thanking the gentleman from
Texas.
I'd like to briefly recognize the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs.
Bachmann) before I go to California for an insert here of a piece of
knowledge I think we need.
Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you, Representative King.
Just listening to this very important discussion among all of our
colleagues, it just struck me that it seems very telling to me that
President Obama, who has strong majorities in both the House and the
Senate, seems to be pointing as his nemesis in this very historic
debate to radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity as
being the nemesis in this debate of this wasteful historic level of
spending. And so I just wonder if it's a coincidence that now we have
Democrat Senators who are calling for Congress to reinstate the
fairness doctrine, to now silence these voices.
I think the American people need to pay attention to what happens
when we challenge this current Democrat majority, because now we're
hearing United States Senators calling to silence the very voices that
have tried to sound the alarm so the American people can know what's
happening here in this Congress.
[[Page H1288]]
And I yield back.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, we would soon have Al Franken's
version of fair and balanced. And before we go to the salt marsh mouse
expert of California, I just want to point out that President Obama
said that there would be no pet projects, and no earmarks. But we have
this pet project of the pet of the Speaker of the House, this San
Francisco $30 million winner of this stimulus plan, even though it
violates all the rules that have been laid out here, except maybe he
will be on display for 48 hours before he comes to final passage.
Gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) for so much time as
he may consume.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman from Iowa.
Let me make several points. First of all, as we look at this stimulus
package, the American people are asking us what's in it. It's difficult
for us to tell because we haven't seen it. But we do know it's premised
on the proposition that if excessive bad spending got us into this
problem, excessive bad spending is going to get us out. And I would
just suggest this to the gentleman from Iowa.
Did not we learn our lesson from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
There were a small number of us on the floor just a couple of years
ago who tried to apply the brakes to a runaway situation. But we were
overwhelmed by the sentiment that, you know, the taxpayers can pay and
pay and pay, or stand behind and stand behind or go into debt
interminably. We can promise more than we can perform. We can do it for
all good intentions, and it will never, the day will never come when we
have to actually deal with the consequences. That should be an object
lesson for us now. How long ago was that? That's just a couple of years
ago. And yet, here we are now dealing with that same situation.
The second point I would make is this: As we understand in this plan,
they have put the Davis-Bacon provisions in, with respect to the
stimulus infrastructure projects. Let me just say this: That cuts down
on the number of jobs that will be created. Don't worry about a fight
with the unions. That's not the point. The point is, when you impose
those stringent standards on the States and localities for their
infrastructure projects, you will have fewer jobs created.
{time} 1745
The third point I would like to make is this: How are we going to pay
for it? We're going to pay for it out of public debt. We're going to
have this nearly $800 billion stimulus. In another 2 weeks, we're going
to be on this floor, and we're going to be talking about a $410 billion
omnibus spending bill, followed by an additional $100 billion
supplemental.
How are we going to pay for that?
We're going to have to go to the market. We will, in fact, have to go
to the market. The Bureau of the Public Debt will attempt to borrow
$2.1 trillion in a single year. This is 4 times the amount of debt we
have ever tried to put on the market in a single year. You don't think
this is going to have consequences? It is.
I am the proud father of three. I have three grandchildren. I have
two step-grandchildren. My youngest grandchild is 1 year of age. What
we do tomorrow will affect him far more than it will affect me or any
of my constituents of an older age, because he is going to have to pay.
When we say, ``you don't have to worry about that,'' just think back to
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It not only helped destroy the housing
industry, but it had a corrupting influence on the banking industry,
and it has cascaded into the entire economy. Maybe we ought to think
about that before we vote tomorrow.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from
California.
I happen to remember that debate. The last one I heard on Fannie and
Freddie was an amendment offered by Congressman Leach on October 26,
2005 right here, and it was the chairman of the Financial Services
Committee today who came down and who most vigorously opposed requiring
the capitalization and regulation of Fannie and Freddie, and they're
beginning to clean up that which is now a $5.5 trillion contingent
liability for the taxpayers of America.
I would like to turn to Ohio. I recognize our time is a little short,
but we will grant however much latitude the gentleman from Ohio might
like to have.
Mr. Latta.
Mr. LATTA. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would
really like to follow up a little bit on what the gentleman from
California just said.
I come from a State and from a district that has heavy manufacturing,
and we're hurting out there, and there is no question about it in my
district in the State of Ohio. America is hurting. You know, the
stimulus package has been talked about. We're not talking about a
package that is going to help America. This has turned not into a jobs
bill but into a spending bill.
If I could just follow up a little bit, I was on a tele-town hall
last night with my constituents. The big question those people had was:
What's in this for me? How is it going to help me? I couldn't tell
them. I couldn't tell these folks how this package was going to help
them. Just today, they asked: What happened to that $700 billion that
we just had in that financial bailout? It's gone.
As the gentleman from California said: What's going to happen right
now?
Well, we're going to raise the national debt ceiling that we have
here for Federal debt to over $11.1 trillion. It just went up last fall
to $10.3 trillion. He is absolutely right. Where is this money going to
come from? Well, we're going to go out, and we're going to have to get
our tin cans out and ask for it from our foreign creditors out there,
who already own $3 trillion of our debt today. The Chinese own $682
billion. We're going to have to say: Can you bail us out? Those people
are saying: Wait a minute. We've got our own problems in our own
country right now.
As the gentleman so rightly pointed out, when that day comes as to
when these countries say, ``we're not going to bail you out,'' we're
going to have to raise the rate that we're going to get for that
interest. As had been pointed out a little bit earlier, what is going
to happen is that our credit markets are going to dry up.
Today, I had 14 local bankers in town. These folks are worried.
They're worried about what happens when it's a tight market right now
and they're trying to get out there. They want to get out there and
lend and make sure that people can run their businesses and that people
can buy houses. Yet the problem we're going to have is that the Federal
Government is going to take that money, and there is going to be a huge
sucking sound around this country of the dollars coming into the
Federal Government as it's using that money to borrow. We can't have
that happen because, when that does, we're going to be in the same
situation that we were in years ago until we can get those markets back
and can let them borrow and start again.
So I just want to sum up. I know there is another speaker here.
The American people are rightly concerned. The people of the Fifth
Congressional District are rightly concerned as to what this bill is
going to do, not for them but to them. So I thank the gentleman for
sponsoring and for yielding. Thank you very much.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Ohio, and I thank all
the folks who have come down here to lend some wisdom.
Recognizing we have about 2 minutes left, unless he should run out of
material, I will be happy to yield the balance of time, or so much time
as he might consume, to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding.
This is a very critical debate. It is a debate on the most important
issue facing our country. We are talking now about the single largest
spending bill in the history of our country being rammed through with
very little debate. There are closed-door, backroom deals being cut
right now on the actual final product that we're going to vote on
today. None of us here can even see it. We were told this was going to
be the most transparent administration. The American people can't even
go online right now and see it. They can't
[[Page H1289]]
even get a copy faxed to them because there is no copy available. It's
being debated behind closed doors and with no public input, and we're
starting to hear about some things that may be in it. I think it
concerns a lot of people as they have already seen some things that are
in this bill that are very concerning.
We are hearing that there are going to be billions of dollars for a
railroad between California and Las Vegas. I don't know about you, my
good friend from Iowa, but we used to hear that what happens in Vegas
stays in Vegas. I guess now what happens in Vegas is going to affect
every taxpayer in this country. Billions of dollars on that one item.
There is language that we're hearing is going to be in this bill that
will undermine the welfare reforms that were made in the 1990s, welfare
reforms that have been dramatically successful in helping people get
off of welfare and get off of that government dependence and finally
get jobs--good, healthy jobs, good-paying jobs, good careers. For those
single women who are out there who are, maybe, single mothers who are
finally getting a good career opportunity, that is being taken away
from them with the undermining of this welfare reform that is in this
language.
The health care czar, this is something that we have never even heard
about before. Now we're finding out there is language that is going to
create some kind of health care czar that will basically be able to
ration health care.
So there are some major changes in here that do not stimulate the
economy at all, that do not create any jobs but that make some very
dramatic policy changes that will affect adversely many, many millions
of people across this country and that will hurt our economy even worse
at a time when we need to be turning it around. We have presented good
alternatives to try to get our economy back on track which would create
jobs in the middle class for those small businesses.
I just want to read one final word before we leave, because all of
this massive spending is creating tremendous debt. Just look at what
FDR's Treasury Secretary said after the New Deal with all of the
spending they did.
``We are spending more than we have ever spent before, and it does
not work. I say, after 8 years of this administration, we have just as
much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot.''
Let's not make the mistakes of the past.
I yield back.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank you for
your indulgence this evening, and I appreciate your attention.
I would yield back the balance of my time.
____________________