[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 53 (Monday, March 30, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H4113-H4120]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PRESIDENT OBAMA'S BUDGET SPENDS TOO MUCH, TAXES TOO MUCH, AND BORROWS 
                                TOO MUCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Heinrich). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. 
Bachmann) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that privilege. Thank you 
for the opportunity to be able to be here this evening and the 
opportunity to be able to address the American people.
  We had a rather extraordinary day yesterday and today with what we 
have

[[Page H4114]]

seen happening in our Nation that has really been extraordinary 
throughout 2009. We have seen such tremendous differences take place.
  The American people are very concerned, and rightly so, about our 
economy. They are wondering how the economy will turn around, when it 
will turn around, when their own personal fortunes will change; and 
they have seen some extraordinary things take place, Mr. Speaker.
  The American people have seen the stimulus plan that came through, 
which was about $1.1 trillion in spending that was passed by this body, 
signed by the President of the United States, an extraordinary historic 
level of spending that we have never seen before just to goose our 
economy, get it going so that we can get back to where we need to be, 
to get job creation. That is what people want to see. We all the want 
to see that. But we all held our breath.
  I voted against the stimulus bill. We held our breath thinking, how 
in the world would we ever begin to replace all of that money that we 
are about to spend? Because, as everyone knows, there is no vault here 
in Washington, D.C., that holds $1.1 trillion that we can just send out 
to the American people. There is no money there. We have to go 
somewhere to get that money. We either have to tax it from the American 
people and bring it to Washington, D.C., and then spread it around so 
that other people can have it, or we have to borrow it from other 
countries like China, for instance, who, quite recently, has said to 
our President that China is very concerned.
  The specter of the Chinese communists lecturing the United States on 
whether or not they feel comfortable about their investment here in the 
United States is really quite a first. And now, we have seen the 
European socialists also lecture the United States saying they are 
worried. As a matter of fact, we saw the Premier from Czechoslovakia 
say that the road the United States is taking, in his words, is the 
road to hell. He doesn't want to see the European socialists go down 
that road as well.
  So as the G-20 is about to come together in London to meet and talk 
about this global economic meltdown, we have seen quite a specter 
occur. We have seen the Prime Minister from England come here to the 
United States, as a matter of fact, stand here in this body and address 
a joint session of Congress and essentially call for a global 
cooperation to have a global answer to this stimulus. That makes a lot 
of Americans quite nervous when we hear that kind of rhetoric.
  Then, just recently we heard also from a leader down in the Latin 
American countries say that it is people with blonde hair and blue eyes 
that have caused this economic meltdown. Of course, that is an outrage 
to make a statement like that.
  All of these things the American people have been seeing, and they 
have been thinking about them, wondering, what does all of this mean? 
And they saw again this body spend $1.1 trillion, and then shortly 
after that spend $410 billion in a budget spending bill that will just 
spend through this year of 2009. But in that bill, they saw almost 
9,000 earmarks in that bill.
  And the American people said: Now, wait a minute. I can't spend that 
kind of money. As a matter of fact, the American people said: Look, I 
saved 5 percent of my income in January, a historic high of savings for 
Americans.
  Just a year ago or so, Americans had a negative savings rate of .1 
percent. Now, Americans have been doing just the reverse. They have 
been doing what most normal people do when they are in an economic 
situation of fear. They decide to pull back on their spending, they 
pull in, and they say, I had better think twice before I buy that fancy 
cup of coffee. I had better think twice before I decide to plunk down 
money and buy a new car. They think twice about what they are going to 
do about changing their home environment and their situation, because 
they are worried. They are worried about whether they will have a job 
next week or next month or next year.
  So it is very difficult right now, Mr. Speaker, for the American 
people to make financial commitments when they look at the level of 
spending that is going on around them. So what are they doing? They are 
saving.
  Just this last month we saw that the American people in the month of 
February were saving at a rate of 4.5 percent. That is a good thing. I 
think it is a good thing the American people are showing the example 
for the United States Congress and for the President to say, this is 
what we need to do.
  Instead of spending money we don't have on a personal level, on a 
Federal level, on a State level, on a local level, the American people 
are living through their own lifestyles and their own choices what they 
wish their government would replicate, and that is this: Start pulling 
back on the spending.
  And what has this government done? What has the Obama presidency 
done, Mr. Speaker? What has this body done, Mr. Speaker, the House and 
the Senate? We have done just the opposite of what the American people 
are doing. The Democrat-controlled Congress and the President have made 
an unprecedented decision to spend money hand over fist, $1.1 trillion 
on stimulus spending money, $410 billion on budget spending for the 
rest of the year, along with all of the other money that has been going 
out the door.
  Now, this week we have the President asking the House of 
Representatives, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to spend, get this, $4 
trillion; commit the American people to spending $4 trillion in the 
upcoming budget. This is almost beyond comprehension, $4 trillion.
  What does that work out to? For 300 million Americans, that is an 
immediate debt burden of $13,000 per American. Every man, woman, and 
child in America would have that immediate debt burden placed on their 
shoulders when they can't begin to afford what the Congress has already 
been spending, historic levels of spending. $4 trillion?
  And it isn't just the spending alone; it is what is being spent on. 
We are looking at socialized medicine for the first time in the United 
States, socialized medicine coming in through this bill. And in one 
vote, the Speaker of the House and the President are asking this body, 
the people's House, the United States House of Representatives to spend 
$4 trillion of their money for socialized medicine. So serious is 
socialized medicine that we need to spend some time on that issue, we 
need to spend some serious time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just downloaded off of the Internet today stories 
about just two countries where socialized medicine was passed into the 
law and implemented, in the United Kingdom in England and Scotland and 
Wales, and also in Canada. I have just this many stories chronicling 
just the last year or so of headlines of what socialized medicine has 
looked like in those English-speaking neighbors of ours, in Canada to 
the north and in the United Kingdom.

  I think it is instructive for the United States Congress to take a 
look at what the experience has been of other countries, and I hope we 
have time to get into some of these stories about what socialized 
medicine has looked like in these other English-speaking Nations.
  Well, that isn't all, Mr. Speaker, socialized medicine and the grand 
leap forward into socialism. We are also looking at the specter of 
tremendous new taxes, punishing new taxes, not just for some, not just 
for 5 percent as President Obama had promised, but for 100 percent of 
the American people.
  When the President of the United States stood here in this body, 
stood right there at the lectern looking out at the joint session of 
Congress where Cabinet members were present and where the American 
people watched in a historic number, 40 million Americans watched, 
heard the President of the United States say quite clearly to them in a 
straightforward manner he would not increase taxes on 95 percent of the 
American people. And in the same evening and in the same address to the 
American people, the President contradicted himself, Mr. Speaker, with 
these words when he said he was committed to putting into place the 
cap-and-trade system, the new global warming energy tax, which will now 
be a tax on 100 percent of all Americans.
  And how is that? It will be felt in the form of our energy bills. 
Whether we have electric bills every month that we pay or whether we 
have gas bills that we pay every month, those bills in many parts of 
the country will in fact double.
  I come from the State of Minnesota. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, we are 
expected

[[Page H4115]]

to have 12 inches of snow in Minnesota. We have had quite a week. We 
had a horrible flood situation up in the Fargo-Moorhead region. Thank 
God, we saw that recede a little bit. It wasn't as bad as we thought it 
was going to be. People's prayers were answered. On the front page this 
morning of the Twin Cities newspaper we saw a beautiful picture of the 
Assemblies of God Church up in the Fargo-Moorhead region; they had been 
praying all weekend that God would withhold the waters. And God clearly 
answered those prayers, Mr. Speaker. Those cities have not been 
devastated as much was we once thought they would be.
  But the devastation that we are looking at now again is in this area 
of taxing. And in Minnesota, as I said, we are seeing 12 inches of snow 
in the Twin Cities area and in southern Minnesota in particular, maybe 
10 inches in northern Minnesota.
  But in Minnesota, Mr. Speaker, the people don't have a choice. Just 
like in many regions across the United States, the people don't have a 
choice. They have to turn on their air conditioning in the summer and 
they have to turn on their furnaces in the winter; otherwise, life is 
simply unbearable. And what will President Obama and the Democrat's 
budget look like here in this Chamber?
  Well, this week, Mr. Speaker, President Obama and the Democrats that 
control the House and the Senate are forcing a vote on this body that 
would mandate that we would have increases in everyone's electric 
bills. And whether it comes in this budget bill or in a separate bill, 
President Obama made it clear; he made it very clear last week when he 
had his press conference, Mr. Speaker, when he said this: It is not 
negotiable to leave out this energy tax. He is insisting that the 
American people pay the energy tax. And in Minnesota, we are calculated 
to see a doubling in our energy bills. A doubling, Mr. Speaker. This is 
unheard of.
  I don't know where people in Minnesota will go. We are experiencing 
very high, unusual rates of unemployment. Minnesota is a diversified 
economy. We are such a great State with awesome employers, but for the 
first time in perhaps 25 years we have seen unemployment in a State as 
diverse as Minnesota spike.
  In one of my largest cities, Mr. Speaker, I was told last week by one 
of my constituents that, in my largest city, that we are seeing 
unemployment now at 9.8 percent. In one of my counties, Mr. Speaker, I 
was told that one of my counties has unemployment now reaching 10 
percent.
  Where are these people going to go, Mr. Speaker, when this body 
decides to pass a budget that will tax them $4 trillion, that will 
impose out a doubling on their energy bills? What are families going to 
do?
  My husband and I are in a couple's Bible study, Mr. Speaker. And I 
was so sad to learn this winter in this couple's Bible study that 
another couple in one of the family members' churches was turning their 
heat down to 55 degrees. That is cold, Mr. Speaker. They have little 
children in their home. And this couple told us their daughter didn't 
want to go over after school and play in this family's home because it 
was going to be too cold for her. The last time she had been there 
visiting her girlfriend, the house was set so cold she was 
uncomfortable. But this family didn't know what to do. They were 
worried, they were afraid, they were scared because the husband had 
lost his job and the wife had lost their job, and they were trying to 
keep their kids warm. But they had a very difficult time doing it, so 
they were turning their heat down.
  Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, if I have to go back to the sixth 
district of Minnesota and tell the people in my district that President 
Obama and the Democrats that run this Chamber have asked me to vote on 
a bill that would double their energy tax bill? They are at home now, 
Mr. Speaker, with 55 degrees just trying to keep their kids warm, 
figuring out some way to get through this very long winter, and now I 
have to go home and tell them that this body wants to impose a burden 
on them that would double their tax bill? I can't do that.

                              {time}  2115

  And I won't do that. I won't vote for a measure like that. It won't 
happen. And my bet is that a lot of other Members are going to see it 
that way too. My bet is, Mr. Speaker, that when we go home after this 
week and talk to our constituents, they are going to look at us, Mr. 
Speaker, and they are going to say, are you crazy? Were you crazy in 
this economic climate to heap yet one more burden on me?
  It reminds me of that Biblical story, Mr. Speaker, where Pharaoh said 
to the Hebrew children, who were slaves in Egypt, when he said to them, 
tell them to make bricks, but don't give them straw. Let them find 
their own straw to make bricks. That's what it seems like President 
Obama and the Democrats that are running the House and the Senate are 
doing to the American people right now, heaping burdens on them to such 
an extent that now they are being told that they must find their own 
straw to make their bricks, when they already are turning their 
thermostats down so that they can just survive and get through the 
winter. This is not the United States of America that we grew up in. We 
don't do this, Mr. Speaker, to our people.
  I see that I have two colleagues that have joined me this evening. I 
would like to defer now to my marvelous colleague from New Jersey, Mr. 
Scott Garrett. He serves with me, Mr. Speaker, on the Financial 
Services Committee. He hails from New Jersey and he is doing a 
wonderful job on behalf of his constituents working so hard to ensure 
that this Congress doesn't spend too much, doesn't tax too much and 
certainly doesn't borrow too much so that those who are yet unborn and 
without jobs will have to be laboring away to be able to pay for these 
profligate spending bills.
  I defer now to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Scott Garrett .
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And I thank the gentlelady for allowing me 
to say a few words. And I see also that we are joined on the floor by 
the gentleman from Georgia as well. And so maybe I will go back and 
forth and just make some points.
  I come to the floor because I heard your remarks just a few moments 
ago, and I thought they were quite eloquent in trying to put in 
perspective exactly what is occurring here on the floor of the House 
and what is occurring here in Washington, D.C., our Nation's capital, 
as Congress goes about its business of formulating and passing a budget 
and how we can talk sometimes here in Washington in these global terms 
and esoteric terms, but at the end of the day it is the American public 
who actually has to foot the bill. They have to reach into their 
proverbial pocket and see if--oh, there is a couple bucks here--they 
can pull dollars out and send them to Washington.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. The gentleman may want to hide those couple of 
dollars. Uncle Sam is looking for a few more.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Since I'm in Washington, there may be a 
hand out trying to reach into my pocket to try and grab those dollars. 
Absolutely. But you make the point that we are, in this country right 
now, and globally as well, in difficult economic times. Whether you are 
trying to put a few bucks away for your kid's education and now you 
realize, gee, at the end of the week when you write your checks, you 
just don't have that money to put aside, or if your kids are already in 
college and you say, how am going to make this month's or this 
quarter's college bill that is due? You just don't know how you're 
going to do it.
  I was just talking on the phone before I came here to the floor, 
honestly, to folks in Upstate New York. And I said, how is the weather 
up there? They said, it is cold. And you're thinking, well, they have 
their heat ratcheted up and they are trying to warm their homes and 
they are paying the fuel costs. Thank goodness that rates have come 
down a little bit, but not by that much. But the young lady that I was 
talking to, she was concerned about how she is going to pay her heating 
bill for the house or the gas to cook the food or the other things they 
need for her kids around the house. And so we talk about things in 
global terms, in large terms. And as you know, I serve on the Budget 
Committee. I have had the honor now to serve on that committee for all 
6 years that I have been in Congress. This year, when I served on the 
committee, this past week we had markup, which as you well know is

[[Page H4116]]

the process where the Democrats present their budget to us, give us the 
opportunity to make some amendments to it, make some improvements, and 
have some give and take.
  I have to tell you that both the time when I was in the majority and 
the time that now I'm in the minority as well, this was the most 
distressing, this was the most frustrating, most unfulfilling process 
that we had in that committee ever. I recall in both scenarios in the 
past years that there was a give and take, there was an ability to have 
some discussion on it. Somebody would say, well, you might have an idea 
on this area and we have an idea on this area, let's come together and 
try to reach some accommodation on that. Let's see where there is some 
agreement where we can work together for the American public.
  You just didn't see that at all. The meeting started I think around a 
little after 9 in the morning. We were done there around midnight. So 
you can count up the number of hours that we were there. We started 
with somewhere up to 30-some-odd amendments I believe that we had, that 
Republicans were presenting to the Democrats. And we would say, here is 
our little slice of our suggestions. And it is not just coming from me. 
And it is not just coming from the staff. These ideas are coming from 
our constituents, from Americans across all 50 States, on how to make 
this budget, this Obama budget, a better budget for America. But not 
one of those substantive amendments passed. They would not vote for a 
single amendment that we proposed. They would not vote for a single 
change, a single alteration, a single--what is that expression, 
changing a jot or a tittle--they would not allow ne'er a one of those.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. What happened to the era of bipartisanship, if I can 
ask the gentleman?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Well, there's the rub, isn't it? So many 
people went into this past election this past November and said we want 
a new era of bipartisanship. We want to work together. And my gosh, so 
do I. I want to be able to extend my hand across the aisle and say, 
here are our ideas. What are your ideas?
  You didn't see it at all. And it was very frustrating. But larger 
than that, larger than the frustration is the irony of it all. The 
Office of Management and Budget from this administration puts out this 
blue book. And you have to scratch your head and laugh because if you 
didn't laugh you would be upset. It's called, this is looking at the 
budget and what have you, it is called ``A New Era of Responsibility.'' 
``A New Era of Responsibility.'' And as I looked at that multitrillion 
dollar----
  Mrs. BACHMANN. How big was that budget deficit, did you say, Mr. 
Garrett?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. That multitrillion-dollar budget.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. And this was responsibility, that new era of 
responsibility?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. You don't see it in Washington. And the 
reason I came to the floor is because you were making the point just as 
I left the office, the administration is asking it from the American 
people. The American people have to be responsible in trying to figure 
out how are they going to live within their means? You were citing the 
examples of cutting back in various facets of a life. And you were also 
pointing out the fact that the American people are actually doing a 
very good thing, and that is increasing their rate of savings. Boy, you 
don't see that aspect of responsibility here in this budget.

  And my last point, and then I will yield the floor back to you or to 
the gentleman from Georgia, is my first point, is that we here in 
Washington sometimes get into Washington and speak on these things and 
the global sort of terms on it. And if you're watching that budget 
meeting, you sort of get the same sense of it. We talk about the fact 
that now as you look at all the wealth of this country, the GDP, the 
gross domestic product of this country, you can see the numbers in this 
budget, meaning that over a quarter of it, up to around 27 percent is 
basically being sucked throughout all 50 States and sent here right to 
Washington, D.C., as the GDP, the amount of government spending will be 
equated to around 27 percent of the gross domestic product.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. So that means out of a dollar, Mr. Garrett, that 27 
cents of every dollar that is spent in the United States is spent by 
government?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Yes. And that is a historically high 
figure. And this is the other funny--I say ``funny,'' but it is not 
funny. This new administration was always rife for criticizing our past 
administration for spending too much money, too high of a percentage. 
But historically, we have been around the 20, 22-some odd percent. And 
we were around that number in this past administration.
  Now we are going through the roof on this. But those are esoteric 
numbers. Those are larger numbers. You can't get your arms around that. 
But it is the numbers when you talk about your family, when you talk 
about the cap and tax, $634 billion roughly of that amount, what does 
that relate to me or to you, your average family?
  Mrs. BACHMANN. And now that has been amended to $2 trillion because 
the President's chief deputy on this issue, Jason, I can't remember his 
last name, his senior aide on the issue of the new global warming 
energy tax, cap and tax, made the statement last week that it isn't 
$646 billion that the place marker is at. It is actually $2 trillion in 
new taxes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And it is from $634 of the $2 trillion in 
taxes, which is hard enough because that is money out of your pocket. 
But we also heard the reports today that it could be even more 
difficult for the American family, the American worker. It could mean 
American jobs. And they were talking about the fact that one of two 
things are going to happen here. The first is that the energy secretary 
made this first observation was something to the effect of this cap and 
tax will have the effect of having jobs leave this country because the 
jobs will go to where the manufacturing and the cost of doing business 
is cheaper. That makes sense. That means your constituents and mine who 
have a job right now tomorrow will find out that their job just went 
overseas as well. And later on this week the secretary made the 
observation, well, one of the responses that we could do, and not that 
he was suggesting it I don't believe, was new tariffs.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Actually, that was in the Wall Street Journal today 
and also in Investor's Business Daily, the Energy Secretary, Mr. Chu, 
had made that comment about tariffs.
  Now this is incredible, because if you look back in history to the 
time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, one of the biggest problems that led 
to prolonged depression was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Now this is 
something that is being suggested by our Energy Secretary, Mr. Chu, new 
tariffs. And what he is suggesting is that if other countries don't 
participate in this new cap-and-tax system, then the United States 
would charge tariffs equal to what those countries would have to pay in 
cap-and-tax systems. So we are looking at erecting profound new tariffs 
that will completely change the United States economy.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And what will that do in the short term 
and the long term? Well, in the short term they will say, don't worry. 
That means that you will keep the jobs here in the United States 
because they won't go overseas because of the tariffs that we created. 
That is the short term.
  Obviously, the long-term effect is, as you indicate, barriers will be 
made in all the other countries, as well, which means when you and I go 
down to the store and buy products which are imported into this 
country, manufactured from other places, what is going to happen to the 
price? It is going to go through the roof.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. They will jack up.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. How are we going to be hit here? Several 
ways. First, we are going to be hit potentially by losing our jobs. 
Secondly, we are going to be hit with the new taxes, several thousand 
dollars on the families for new taxes, if you have a job. And thirdly, 
the expenses at the store, if you do have a job, and you still have 
some money in your pocket after your taxes and you're able to go to the 
store and do some shopping, what are you going to find? You will find 
that prices are going to be going through the roof. So one, two, three,

[[Page H4117]]

we are going to be hit in three separate ways because of this budget. 
Those are the practical aspects.
  I see the gentleman from Georgia here is nodding.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks from New Jersey 
(Mr. Garrett) because in Investor's Business Daily today, they had a 
chart that perfectly illustrated what you were saying with the Great 
Depression. If you look at the skyrocketing prices that we will see 
under a tariff-based system and the skyrocketing taxes and the job 
losses, those three together are the great indicators of another Great 
Depression.
  We are not here fear-mongering. That is not what we are interested in 
doing. But what we are doing is laying the table for the Obama 
administration's budget. The Democrats control the House and Senate. 
They are laying out the budget this week for this body to take a vote 
on. And the specter of having leakage, which is massive outsourcing of 
jobs, high taxes and high prices, that is not what the American people 
are asking for.
  We are joined this evening by Dr. Phil Gingrey, a gentleman from 
Georgia who is a tremendous advocate for free markets and for free 
markets and health care who is down here on the floor helping us 
frequently on these measures.
  And Dr. Gingrey, I now yield to you so we can go back and forth. We 
would love to hear what you have to say on this subject of the budget.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from 
Minnesota for yielding and also my colleague from New Jersey, my 
classmate, Representative Scott Garrett. This is the week that we take 
up the budget, Mr. Speaker, as all of our colleagues know, and we are 
going to have, we have the Obama version that came over from OMB, the 
Office of Management and Budget, which crunched the numbers for the 
President. And it is a budget that calls for, well, I have the numbers 
right here, Mr. Speaker. And it sort of has a side-by-side comparison 
of the Obama budget, the House version, which we will take up in this 
Chamber, and the Senate version.

                              {time}  2130

  I just noticed, I can't help but just be absolutely astounded, Mr. 
Speaker, by these numbers. But in the President's budget, he calls for 
spending $3.67 trillion, $3.67 trillion. That's the 2010 Fiscal Year 
budget.
  Now, when the Congressional Budget Office, the bipartisan number 
crunchers for the Congress, for the House and the Senate, when they 
looked at the Obama budget, they said, you know, instead of creating 
something like $7 trillion worth of debt over 10 years, it's going to 
be $9 trillion worth of debt over 10 years.
  And we heard on television, Mr. Speaker, immediately, the concern 
expressed by the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator 
Kent Conrad from North Dakota and also the concern, even, you could see 
it in his face, the concerned expression on the face of the chairman of 
the House Budget Committee, John Spratt, our friend from South 
Carolina, that, goodness gracious, based on these Congressional Budget 
Office estimates, nonpartisan, that this presidential budget of $3.67 
trillion was not sustainable.
  I think, Mr. Speaker, that's what the Congressional Budget Office 
said. This level of spending is not sustainable.
  So I really expected some significant cuts in the budget proposed by 
the House and proposed by the Senate. And yet, when you look at these 
side by side, as I said at the outset, the President Obama budget $3.67 
trillion, the House budget which Mr. Spratt will present to us in the 
next couple of 3 days, $3.55 trillion, the Senate version, $3.53 
trillion. Well, to my surprise, there is not much cutting here. 3.67 
trillion versus 3.55, the House version, or 3.53, the Senate version, 
my colleagues, that is a lot of spending and very little cut.
  I have to do the quick math, and I would say that we're talking about 
one one-hundredth of a percent, or maybe it's close to one one-
thousandth of a percent of cut. So you can posture, you can use a lot 
of rhetoric about what you're doing in regard to being fiscally 
responsible. But you'd have to say, and hearing those numbers, well, 
gee, I guess what the Democratic Congress, who enjoys the majority, the 
majority party, basically makes some tweaking around the edges 
posturing, I think, to some extent, but there's no significant 
difference in the President's budget and what we're going to have to 
vote on here in the House and also over in the Senate.
  So I think, to suggest is very, very misleading to suggest that this 
body, or this Congress, both chambers, is exercising fiscal 
responsibility. I think these budgets are not sustainable, just as the 
President's budget is not sustainable.
  And if my colleague from Minnesota will continue to yield, I've got a 
slide or two that I want to show, because, Mr. Speaker, I hear so much, 
and I watched some of the Sunday morning cable programs and network 
news, where most of the time it's the Senators that are getting 
interviewed, or the administration. Of course, Geithner was on this 
weekend, as he's been on a lot with this, what he's doing with the 
Treasury Department and the recommendations for getting us back on the 
road to fiscal recovery.
  But I heard him say, the Treasury Secretary, ``well, you know, we 
inherited a bad situation.''
  Mr. Speaker, I know you've heard it. My colleagues, Mrs. Bachmann, I 
know you've heard it, you know, this creating a straw man and saying, 
you know, well, we inherited this mess, talking about the budget or 
indeed talking about the situation in Afghanistan or Iraq. We inherited 
this bad policy.
  But, in regard to the budget, that's where I really wanted to focus 
my attention. They keep saying that this deficit for the Fiscal Year 
2009, which now is approaching 1.8, 1.7, $1.8 trillion, I mean, that's 
four times as large as any deficit under the Bush administration. Go 
back and look at 2004 or 2005, 2006. Our deficits were coming down.
  And the Democrats have been in control, Mr. Speaker, since January of 
2007. So you know, when you say that you inherited, well, what party 
was it that refused to pass nine spending bills in the Fiscal Year 
2009? Which party was that? Well, it was the majority party. And the 
reason that they did not want to pass those bills is because the 
President, the former President simply said, this is too much spending, 
and if you send those to my desk, I will veto them.
  So the Democratic majority, Mr. Speaker, just held back on those 
spending bills, and we had these continuing resolutions to fund the 
government because they knew when they got the presidency, which most 
polls suggested at that point, that they would, and they did, and then 
brought forward, in the first part of this year, those nine bills that 
increased spending by 8 percent.
  If you add the money that was put in the so-called economic recovery 
spendulus package to the 8 percent, it turns out that on those nine 
bills we increased the spending by 80 percent. Eighty percent. And so, 
you can't blame the previous administration for a $1.7 trillion 
deficit. You know, you can say, well, some of that we voted on in 
regard to the TARP money, the $700 billion, that vote occurring in 
October/November time frame of 2008. And you say, well, yes, that added 
to this deficit.
  But who was it that voted for that and approved that in the House and 
the Senate? The Democratic majority. They're the ones that voted for 
it. A few Republicans, sure. But it was the Democrats that--they could 
have stopped it. They could have stopped every dime of that $700 
billion TARP, Toxic Asset Relief Program which, as it turned out, was 
never even spent for that.
  So as we look at what's going on in the future, just as the 
Congressional Budget Office did, over the next 10 years, you see what 
we're talking about, these deficits that go out into the future as far 
as the eye can see. And so at the end of 10 years, our debt is 
increased--well, real quickly, just another slide to show that. In 
2019, that 10-year budget window, we're going from something like 
almost $6 trillion of debt to 14, almost $15 trillion of public debt by 
the year 2019. Man, if anything is unsustainable, that is 
unsustainable.
  And to show it in a pictorial form, and I think we can bring this 
home to our colleagues so much with this next

[[Page H4118]]

poster, Mr. Speaker. President Obama would more than double the Federal 
debt to $14.5 trillion, with a T. It took 43 presidents, here's their 
pictures, 43 presidents, 232 years to build up $5.8 trillion in 
publicly held Federal debt. Under President Obama's proposed budget, 
over the next 6 years, we're going to add $8.7 trillion to that.
  These are staggering numbers and, as the CBO says, Mr. Speaker, 
unsustainable. I just wanted to make sure my colleagues understood what 
we're talking about here and the magnitude and the significance of 
this.
  I'm going to yield back to the gentlelady from Minnesota who controls 
the time. I know we have other colleagues here that want to speak. And 
I will enjoy continuing the colloquy during this hour.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you so much, Mr. Gingrey.
  We have several other things to talk about that occurred today, one 
of which was talked about, I think, in almost every paper across the 
United States, as well as every media outlet. On the Wall Street 
Journal today the headline today was ``Government Forces Out Wagoner at 
GM.'' This really is unprecedented.
  And Mr. Speaker, I just need to read the first opening paragraph. It 
says, ``The Obama administration used the threat of withholding more 
bailout money to force out General Motors Corporation chief executives, 
which marked one of the most dramatic government interventions in 
private industry since the economic crisis began last year.''
  Now, this is in the United States. We have the presidency, under some 
authority, pushing out a CEO, the head of the largest car manufacturer 
in the United States.
  This goes on to say, ``The government has demanded the ouster of the 
head of AIG, American International Group, but only as it took a 
majority shareholder position.'' In this case, in GM, the 
administration has ousted a major CEO as part of an ongoing 
restructuring.
  When we thought we couldn't be outraged any more, when we thought we 
wouldn't see anything more audacious, we see it yet again. Here is a 
company, Mr. Speaker, where we have the President deciding who's going 
to lead the company and who isn't going to lead the company.
  And I was so curious today, I listened to President Obama's remarks 
that he made. This is from the White House. I encourage all Americans 
to go and read these remarks for themselves. It's remarks by the 
President on the American automotive industry. I don't think we've ever 
seen anything quite like this. It's emblematic of where this 
administration is taking the American taxpayer in this budget.
  Now we're seeing the President and the Democrat-controlled Congress 
wanting to run virtually every aspect of American's lives, from health 
care, every aspect of health care, which is 18 percent of our economy, 
to running the banking system, to running the largest insurance company 
in the United States, to running the secondary mortgage market, and now 
to running the largest automobile company in America and the second 
largest automobile company in America.
  Today, President Obama said, ``We cannot and must not, we will not 
let our auto industry vanish,'' which is great. And I'm wondering how 
he'll do it. With cutting taxes? I've read his speech. There's nothing 
here about cutting taxes. With cutting regulations maybe. That might 
help Detroit. There's nothing in here about cutting regulations.
  How about cheaper energy? Wasn't that a big problem last July when 
gas prices were soaring over $4 a gallon on their way to 6, 8, who 
knows what? Maybe cheaper energy. Maybe we'll be able to start getting 
that oil, the shale oil out of the Western Rocky area. Maybe cheaper 
oil. No, there's nothing in these remarks about cheaper American oil. 
Nothing at all. In fact, what we see is just the opposite.
  We see the President of the United States intervening personally to 
topple the head of GM. And then we see the President intervening 
personally to take a hand at rewriting the restructuring of these two 
once great American car companies.
  And as a matter of fact, he goes on to say that he's made a decision 
to have these car companies become, telling them what they're going to 
produce with their products with the new clean car companies. And, in 
fact, he goes on to say that the car industry isn't moving in the right 
direction. He's going to decide what that direction is. And it's not 
moving fast enough. The President is going to decide how fast it's 
going to move. He goes on to say, the United States government has no 
interest in running GM. But then in the next line he says, but we're 
going to give GM an opportunity to finally make those much-needed 
changes.
  He goes on to say that General Motors, which I think now we'll have 
to call Government Motors after this move, that the new General Motors 
is going to have to work together with the Obama administration to 
clean up their balance sheets, consolidate unprofitable brands, and 
figure out what future investments they're going to make.
  But then he goes on to Chrysler, and the President says this. ``The 
situation at Chrysler is more challenging. It's with deep reluctance 
that we've determined, after careful review, that Chrysler needs a 
partner to remain viable.'' And we find out that the President has 
already worked with an international car manufacturer, Fiat Motors, and 
he wants Fiat Motors to come in, merge with Chrysler. And then, upon a 
successful merger, under President Obama's plan, then the American 
taxpayer will be good enough, Mr. Speaker, to come in with $6 billion. 
And now the company will be owned by Fiat, a foreign company, located 
in the United States, but with $6 billion in American taxpayer money.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. Speaker, the President's remarks today are nothing more than 
industrial policy that you would see in Eastern bloc nations. I urge 
every American to download the President's comments that he made today. 
This is the future that we are looking at in the United States. It is 
not good enough to have the Federal Government just take over banks, to 
just take over insurance companies, to just take over secondary 
mortgage markets, to just bankrupt our country, and to punish with new 
energy tax increases.
  Now the American Government is thinking it is smarter than car 
companies, and they are going to approve plans, decide which product, 
and then the American people are going to come in and buy the cars--buy 
fleets for bureaucrats. That is in President Obama's remarks. American 
people will be buying new cars for bureaucrats. That is how we are 
going to bail out Detroit. Now, this would be humorous if it were not 
so serious. This is all part of President Obama's plan.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake: this has absolutely nothing to do with 
free markets. Nothing. That is why the Chinese Communists are very 
nervous right now about the American economy, because they kind of like 
the way our free markets work. Otherwise, they would have invested in 
Communist countries; they would have invested in socialist countries, 
but they chose to invest in a free market country, but now the Chinese 
Communists are nervous, and they are telling President Obama, we're not 
too sure about your investments, and European socialists are saying the 
same thing: We're not too sure about your investments, because what is 
it that the President now, Mr. Speaker, is embracing? He is embarking 
upon an industrial policy that this country was smart enough to have 
nothing to do with.
  I encourage the American people: you need to download President 
Obama's remarks today that he made from the White House on the United 
States essentially taking over and running roughshod over GM and 
Chrysler.
  With that, I would like to hand it back to my colleague from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank my colleague for yielding. She brings 
up such a good point.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't stand here and say that President Obama is 
deliberately trying to destroy markets, but as my colleague points out, 
this, in effect, is exactly what is happening. What will be the result? 
I hasten to say that what we are talking about here in regard to 
General Motors and Chrysler and the speech that the President made in 
regard to what he is doing sounds so much like what was done in this 
body

[[Page H4119]]

last week in regard to these bonuses that were paid legally and 
legitimately. Although, public outrage suggests that the recipients of 
those bonuses from AIG--because we, the taxpayers, had bailed them out 
to the tune of $170 trillion--clearly, should voluntarily give those 
bonuses back.
  It isn't for us to trample all over the Constitution and to have a 
trial by legislation of these recipients of the bonuses. A bill of 
attainment is what article I of the Constitution calls it, or violating 
the takings clause of the fifth amendment, and we knew that. Every 
Member of this body, I think, knew exactly that they were voting for 
something that was unconstitutional, just to sort of show, oh, gosh, 
you know, we are the fiscally responsible ones. The bonuses amounted to 
1/1,000th of the amount of money that this Democratic majority and that 
even the previous administration had bestowed on this company like it 
was the only insurance company that existed in the United States of 
America.
  I don't get my life insurance from AIG, and here we come along with 
this plan of telling the CEO of General Motors that he has got to step 
down. Do you know what I fear, Mr. Speaker? I fear that, once again, 
this is just posturing to set us up for another bailout. They want more 
money. General Motors wants more money. I am sure Chrysler does, too. 
So we hear this plan of, Oh, we're going to really crack the whip and 
crack down on these egregious folks, like the chairman and CEO of 
General Motors, and make him step down. I would really like to know--
and hopefully, some good investigative reporter, Mr. Speaker, will find 
out--what kind of golden parachute he gets as he steps down.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. If the gentleman would yield, I think it is even more 
than just taking a look at another bailout. There is certainly another 
bailout on the horizon. The President even indicated as much in his 
remarks today. He has already told these companies what it is going to 
be. Chrysler would get $6 billion if Chrysler, essentially, goes away 
and lets Fiat buy them out. That is what is going to happen. The 
American people need to realize this. Under President Obama's plan, 
Chrysler will be history, and Fiat will come in. A foreign company will 
come into the United States, will purchase Chrysler, and then we 
taxpayers are expected to pony up $6 billion to a foreign company to 
give them the capital that they need. Just so the American people know, 
these are President Obama's words today:
  He said, ``But just in case there's still nagging doubts, let me say 
it as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler or General 
Motors, you'll be able to get your car serviced and repaired just like 
always. Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it 
has ever been because, starting today, the United States Government 
will stand behind your warranty.''
  So how do you like them apples? Here we have, Mr. Speaker, the United 
States of America standing up almost like a used car dealer, saying, 
``Don't you worry. The United States Government is going to back the 
car warranty on your car. So go down to the GM. Buy yourself an Impala 
because the United States Government is going to stand by your 3-year 
warranty, and if you're really good, maybe it will be a 5-year 
warranty.''
  So here you have the United States Government intervening, not only 
like the Wall Street Journal said--by lopping off the head of the CEO 
of General Motors, now called Government Motors--but now we have the 
Federal Government deciding it's going to be the pitchman, and it's 
going to back your warranty.
  In fact, not only that, but President Obama said, ``We recognize 
there's a weakness in our economy.'' He said, ``To support demand for 
car sales in this period, I am directing my team to take several steps. 
Here is the first one: We're going to take money from the stimulus to 
purchase government cars as quick as we can for Federal bureaucrats.'' 
So this is going to give a lot of aid and comfort to the American 
people in knowing that their bureaucrat is going to be driving a brand 
new car, purchased at government expense. So their taxes are going to 
have to go up to buy cars for bureaucrats.
  ``Number 2: We're going to accelerate our efforts through the 
Treasury Department.'' Now, I thought the Treasury Department had quite 
a bit on its plate right now. They're not even able to fill positions 
in their office, but now they're going to open up a brand new consumer 
lending department rather than have the car companies', like GM's auto 
finance. They are gone. The Treasury Department, which is the new 
investment bank in the United States, is now the new consumer and 
business lending initiative. Our Treasury Secretary, who, apparently, 
doesn't have enough to do is now going to be the new loan officer for 
the cars in the United States, but it gets better.
  Third, the IRS, which is now our new friend under President Obama, 
will be the new marketing arm of the Federal Government because they 
are going to launch a campaign to alert consumers of a new tax benefit 
for car purchases made between February 16 and the end of this year. If 
this doesn't sound like an ad you would see on late night TV: If you 
buy a car this year, we will deduct the cost of sales and excise taxes. 
In fact, we think we will sell 100,000 new cars.

  Mr. Speaker, Detroit sells millions of cars every year. So we are 
going to have the Federal Government take over these two car 
manufacturers so they can sell 100,000 new cars? That would be a bad 
day for Detroit if that's what they would all sell, but that's not the 
end of it.
  Then the President went on to say today, ``Several Members of 
Congress have proposed an even more ambitious incentive program to 
increase car sales while modernizing our fleet.'' That is really going 
to comfort the American people in knowing that Congress has come up 
with a plan to sell cars to the American people, and such fleet 
modernization programs will provide generous credit to consumers who 
turn in old, less fuel-efficient cars and who purchase cleaner cars.
  Again, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, this is so pathetic to think that 
now Congress is going to come up with a way to sell cars better than 
the private markets and that we are going to have bureaucrats driving 
new cars while the American people are limping along in their old cars. 
They cannot afford to buy cars. This is unbelievable.
  I urge the American people to download the President's remarks from 
today. This has very little to do with the free market. It has 
everything to do with failed Eastern European industrialized policy. 
This is not what the American people want. They want their taxes cut. 
They want jobs in the United States, and they want to be able to have 
less burdens on their backs from regulations.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, the gentlelady from Minnesota, I think, 
put it so well, and I think you and my colleagues would almost have to 
agree that this sounds so socialistic.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Perhaps because it is.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. There are worse terms you could apply to it, 
and the gentlelady may have one that she wants to express.
  You know, as to this Government Motors business of, look, we have to 
do this so that people will be confident in the company and will buy 
these automobiles because now they feel secure in their 3- to 5-year 
warranty, listen, I would feel so much better with the chapter 11 
option and if General Motors had to restructure under the bankruptcy 
code. Then nobody would lose their jobs. Maybe there would have to be a 
little cut in pay, and the vendors would take a little haircut, but 
this company would continue to be viable.
  I want to just very quickly tell my colleagues about a company that 
is very important in my district, the 11th Congressional District of 
Georgia. We have a lot of poultry industry in northwest Georgia, and 
the big name that you hear about when you think about poultry 
processing--across the country, in fact, certainly not just in 
Georgia--is a company called Pilgrim's Pride. People know about 
Pilgrim's Pride. Well, they're financially struggling, and had to lay 
off literally thousands of workers and temporarily shut down for about 
3 months until they made the tough decision to go into a bankruptcy 
reorganization under chapter 11.
  I talked to some of the company executives within the last week when 
I

[[Page H4120]]

went back into the district, and they said, Congressman, we're doing 
fine. Everybody is back to work. We're going to work our way out of 
this, and we're going to end up being a much stronger company in the 
long run. That is the magic of the free market, Mr. Speaker, and that 
is exactly what we are talking about here tonight.
  I commend Michele Bachmann for her wisdom in presenting this, and I 
yield back to the gentlelady.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. If the gentleman would yield, what you're talking 
about with Pilgrim's Pride, the great chicken producer in your 
district, that could have been done by our car manufacturers here in 
the United States without one dime of taxpayer money going into the 
auto industry.
  I sit on the Financial Services Committee. We had the Big Three 
automakers in front of our committee, and I asked that question when 
the gentlemen were there. I asked, ``Wouldn't bankruptcy protection be 
your best friend? It would shield your company from further legal 
liability, and it would allow you the freedom to restructure your 
contracts and to restructure your organization.'' That would have been 
a great tool that would not have cost any money.
  Unfortunately, our President has made a decision to take the most 
expensive and the deepest government intervention route that we have 
ever seen in the history of our country. My fear, Mr. Speaker, is we 
will never again see a free car manufacturer, an American-made car 
manufacturer, in the United States. Is there any industry that thinks, 
once the government gets its fingers at the level where it approves 
your business plan and then backs up the warranty of your product and 
decides what your product will be and who the purchasers of your 
product will be, that the government will ever get out of the car 
business? At that point, what are we going to have left to buy--pogo 
sticks?
  We are not going to have much of a car industry left once the United 
States Government gets done with it. It's kind of like free health 
care. We will never see more expensive health care than when the 
Federal Government gets involved.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, if the gentlelady will yield, she kind 
of perked my interest a little bit there as she was starting to talk 
about health care.
  Mr. Speaker, you know I am one of the physician Members of this body, 
and have practiced a long time--delivering babies in Marietta and in 
surrounding counties--and I am so glad that health care has been 
brought up tonight because the President just feels like government-run 
programs work better than the free market. We are on the verge of 
seeing Hillarycare all over again. I don't want to totally shift gears 
here on this subject, but it is such an important point, Mr. Speaker.
  We don't necessarily try to say that the free market system of health 
care is perfect or that we don't need to do some things to try to get 
the 47 million or so who are uninsured in this country health care that 
is accessible and affordable and portable, that they own, where they 
can control their own destiny and where we can encourage them to adopt 
wellness policies regarding their own health.

                              {time}  2200

  That is a subject maybe for another hour, and I will yield back to 
the gentlelady from Minnesota.
  But clearly, we Republicans, the minority party, feel that the 
marketplace is the best place to solve these problems. And I don't 
want, Representative Bachmann doesn't want, and nobody in this Chamber 
should want government motors.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman and thank you for this time.
  We yield back. Thank you.

                          ____________________