[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3402-3403]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          STIMULUS COMPROMISE

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, over the past several months, a 
series of frightening economic events have left many Americans without 
work and many more wondering when the bad news will end. A problem that 
began in the housing sector spread to the financial sector, triggering 
even more problems in industries that rely on credit. Major U.S. 
companies that many Americans never thought were vulnerable have laid 
off thousands of workers, some for the first time ever. Last month 
alone, 600,000 Americans lost jobs.
  This was the situation when President Obama took office late last 
month. And, to his credit, our new President has committed himself to 
working with Congress to fix the economy, a top priority for both 
parties. A month before Inauguration Day, the President told us that 
bold legislative action would be needed. He also said repeatedly that 
he would be careful in spending the taxpayers' money.
  The American people were ready to support an economic plan that would 
work and that wouldn't spend money we don't have on things we don't 
need. So were Republicans in Congress.
  What many of us did not expect, however, was that President Obama 
wouldn't be the author of that plan. In an odd turn of events, the bold 
economic plan that President Obama called for ended up being written by 
some of the longest-serving Democrats in the House of Representatives--
and it showed. Tasked with writing a stimulus bill that was timely, 
targeted, and temporary, Democrats in the House produced an enormous 
spending bill that was none of the above.
  Criticism of the House bill was fierce, so many of us expected that 
Democrats in the Senate would draft a much better bill. Unfortunately, 
those hopes turned out to be unfounded. Not only was the Senate bill 
more expensive than the House bill, it repeated the same mistakes: 
hundreds of billions in permanent Government expansion, wasteful 
projects that would have minimal or no impact on job creation, and a 
staggering $1.2 trillion pricetag when interest costs are added.
  As the Senate version was taking shape, a number of Senators 
expressed serious concerns. One Senator said he was, ``very committed 
to making sure that we get it scrubbed clean of many of these 
programs.'' Another said that, ``If there's wasteful or silly spending, 
or spending that does not, you know, create, jobs, that sort of stuff 
needs to be pruned out.'' Another Senator said, ``We are seeking not to 
let this thing get loaded up with all these other pet projects and pet 
programs.'' Another said, ``. . . it needs some work. It needs some 
surgery.'' And those were just the Democrats.
  Concerns were so widespread that President Obama called a meeting at 
the White House with congressional leaders. After the meeting, many of 
us thought Senate Democrats would rethink their plan. They didn't. They 
dug in deeper. Republicans tried repeatedly to cut out the waste and 
bring down the total cost of the bill, and to refocus on the central 
problem of the housing market. Democrats resisted. They rejected an 
amendment that would have cut more than $25 billion in wasteful 
spending from the bill. They rejected an amendment that would have 
turned off spending on newly created programs--rather than let them 
live in perpetuity. They rejected an amendment that would have turned 
off spending once the economy recovers.
  In the end, Senate Democrats produced a bill that fell so far short 
that a compromise emerged. But the compromise itself wasn't much better 
than the original House or Senate bills. Much of the spending was 
either permanent or unfocused. And many of the wasteful or 
nonstimulative projects that raised concerns in the earlier

[[Page 3403]]

versions remained: hundreds of millions for Government cars and 
Government golf carts; $200 million to consolidate the Department of 
Homeland Security offices in Washington; $100 million for grants to 
small shipyards; nearly $1 billion to spruce up parks.
  In every version of the stimulus we have seen, wasteful spending has 
attracted the most attention. But even more worrisome to many is the 
permanent expansion of Government programs. One estimate puts the cost 
of this expansion at nearly $1 trillion over the next decade.
  Even the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which counts 
Obama economic adviser Paul Volcker and former Clinton Budget Director 
Alice Rivlin as directors, has been highly critical of this aspect of 
the bill. Last week, CRFB president Maya MacGuineas pointed out that 
many of the bill's spending projects squander resources. But even more 
troubling, she said, are the programs that aim to permanently expand 
Government. As MacGuineas put it, ``extending our borrowing beyond the 
economic downturn will make our already-dismal fiscal picture far, far 
worse.''
  Still, some Democrats continue to defend the bill. Asked about its 
apparent lack of focus, one veteran Democratic Congressman said, ``So 
what.'' One Senate Democrat called $16.4 billion in the bill ``a 
trifle.'' Another Democrat Senator said that by inserting a $3 billion 
project of his own, he was just ``fiddling at the edges.'' Another said 
that $50 billion was ``not going to make the difference to the 
economy.'' Most people cringe at a 50-cent increase in the cost of 
bread. Senate Democrats shrug at taking $16 billion from the taxpayers 
for a project they can't even assure us will work. In an economic 
downturn, we should care more about how we spend their tax dollars--not 
less.
  America is in the midst of a serious economic crisis. At some point, 
however, we will all have to face an even larger crisis: We have a $1.2 
trillion deficit. The national debt is approaching $11 trillion. Soon 
we will be voting on an omnibus appropriations bill that will cost 
another $400 billion. This week, Secretary Geithner is expected to 
propose another round of bank bailouts that could cost up to $2 
trillion. Including interest, the bill before us will cost $1.2 
trillion.
  Americans are asking themselves ``Where does it end?'' They want to 
know how we're going to pay for all this. They are worried. And they 
should be worried about a bill so big that it is equivalent to spending 
more than $1 million a day for more than 3,000 years. This is an 
enormous amount of money.
  The President was right to call for a stimulus, but this bill misses 
the mark. It is full of waste. We have no assurance it will create jobs 
or revive the economy. The only thing we know for sure is that it 
increases our debt and locks in bigger and bigger interest payments 
every year. In short, we are taking an enormous risk with other 
people's money. On behalf of taxpayers, I will not take that risk.
   The administration is clearly worried about the risks of spending 
this much money. Over the weekend, the Treasury Secretary decided to 
postpone an announcement on the use of the remaining TARP money and an 
entity that would absorb toxic assets from troubled banks.
  Yesterday, the Democrat majority in the House postponed a leftover 
appropriations bill from last year that would bring 2009 spending to 
more than $1 trillion for the first time ever. It may seem overwhelming 
to do all of this at the same time. But, in my view, we need to lay all 
of this spending on the table at once, rather than trickle it out in an 
effort to hide the true costs.
  We need to be straight with the American people.
  Last year, the national debt was about $10 trillion. The interest 
payments on that debt totaled about $450 billion. At the same rate of 
interest, the debt we're about to take on from this stimulus, the bad 
bank legislation, and the appropriations bill could cost an additional 
$250 billion per year in interest payments.
  That's about $700 billion next year in interest payments on the debt 
alone--more than we spent last year on defense, military construction, 
Veterans hospitals, and Homeland Security combined--$700 billion with 
nothing to show for it, $700 billion just to keep the creditors from 
knocking on our door. The interest costs on the stimulus bill alone 
will cost us $95 million a day, every day, for the next 10 years. Most 
people know what it is to charge a little more on the credit card than 
you should. They should know that their Government is about to charge a 
lot more on the Nation's credit than it can afford--and that it is 
counting on the taxpayers to cover the cost.
  This is serious money, all of it borrowed, and all of it spent on the 
hope that it will help lift the economy.
  All of us want to strengthen the economy and create and save jobs. 
Republicans believe the best way to do it is to first fix the problem, 
which is housing. Then we need to let people keep more of what they 
earn. Throughout this process, Republicans have been guided by the 
belief that the desire to ``just do something'' shouldn't be an excuse 
to waste tax dollars. That is why we proposed a plan that was more 
focused on the problem and which didn't waste money--in short, a plan 
that was timely, targeted, and temporary. Sadly the bill before us is 
none of these things, despite the good intent of the President. 
Obviously, I will be voting against it, and I urge my colleagues to do 
the same.

                          ____________________