[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2758-2759]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           ECONOMIC STIMULUS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, according to news reports, President 
Obama called congressional Democrats down to the White House the other 
night to talk about treating this bill more like a stimulus and less 
like a free-for-all. I commend him for the effort, and I appreciate it. 
But after yesterday, it looks like they might need a little stronger 
medicine.
  The day after meeting with President Obama, Democrats offered several 
amendments, and every single one of them added to the total cost of 
what is already nearly a $1 trillion spending bill--$11 billion here, 
$25 billion there, another $6 billion somewhere else. In other words, 
real money. By the end of the first day of debate, the Democrats had 
added more than $41 billion to a bill that just about everybody else in 
America already thought was way too large.
  On this side, Republicans offered some amendments too. All but one of 
them, however, sought to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. The President 
has tried to set some priorities. Unfortunately, Democrats keep 
throwing more money on top of an already incredibly bloated bill. At 
some point, we are going to have to learn to say no. If we are going to 
help the economy, we need to get hold of this bill. Making it bigger 
isn't the answer.
  The President seems to recognize the problem. Last night, he repeated 
his call for discipline and restraint in a letter from OMB Director 
Peter Orszag. Its message was clear: The Nation is in a financial 
crisis and this bill should be stripped of everything that doesn't aim 
to solve the crisis. As Mr. Orszag put it:

       We need to recognize that this recovery and reinvestment 
     plan is an extraordinary response to an extraordinary crisis. 
     It should not be seen as an opportunity to abandon the fiscal 
     discipline that we owe each and every taxpayer in spending 
     their money and in keeping the United States strong in a 
     global, interdependent economy.

  This bill needs to be cut down, and we should start with permanent 
spending increases, which only increase the deficit from here on out. 
This is a permanent spending bill that has been slipped into a bill 
that was supposed to be timely, temporary, and targeted. Many of these 
additions may be very worthwhile, but they still don't belong in a 
stimulus bill. So the first thing we need to do is to make a 
distinction between what grows the economy and what doesn't. Anything 
that doesn't ought to be cut out. That is what the President said 
Monday night, that is what he repeated last night; that we need to be, 
``trimming out things that aren't relevant to putting people back to 
work right now.'' Add up the interest payments and the total 
nonstimulus spending in this bill and it is in the hundreds of billions 
of dollars. That is completely unacceptable. So there is plenty of room 
to cut wasteful spending. As Mr. Orszag said in his letter, the 
President is ``insistent that the bill not include any earmarks or 
special projects.''
  Another target-rich area is all the spending for new programs that 
claim to create new jobs. What people don't realize is how much it 
costs to create some of these jobs. Analysts have gone through some of 
the new programs and here is what they have found: $524 million for a 
program at the State Department that promises to create 388 jobs here 
at home. That comes to $1.35 million per job. Let me say that again--
$1.35 million per job; $125 million to the DC Water and Sewer 
Authority. That comes to $480,000 per job; $100 million for 300 jobs at 
USAID. That is $333,333 per job. That is just a few. Surely there are 
more efficient ways to create jobs with taxpayer dollars than this.
  So there is plenty of room to cut in this bill. It is time we started 
doing some of it. America is already staring at a $1 trillion deficit. 
The bill before us, in its current form, will cost, with interest, $1.3 
trillion. Soon we will vote on an Omnibus appropriations bill that will 
cost $400 billion. The President is talking about another round of bank 
bailout funds that some say could cost as much as $4 trillion.
  This isn't monopoly money. All of it is borrowed money that the 
taxpayers will have to pay back at some point. I think we owe it to 
them to lay all these things out on the table now so America can see 
what it is getting into. I think we owe it to the American people to 
show some restraint on the bill that is before us.
  Republicans have a number of better ideas for making this bill 
simpler, more targeted, and more directly beneficial to workers and to 
homeowners.

[[Page 2759]]

We have been sharing those ideas for the last week.
  Economists from both sides of the political spectrum recognize that 
housing is at the root of the current downturn. We believe we should 
fix this problem first before we do anything else--certainly before we 
build a fish barrier, spruce up offices for bureaucrats or build a 
water slide. I mean, let's get serious. We can either talk about fixing 
the problem or we can take immediate action to help 40 million 
Americans stay in their homes or buy a new one. That is our choice.
  We need to act now, and soon we will be voting on a Republican better 
idea to do that. But first there are plenty of areas in this bill we 
can cut, even before we consider some of the good Republican ideas that 
President Obama has said he wants to incorporate into the final bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________