[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3861-3868]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 3862]]

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 
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

[[Page 3863]]

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 
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

[[Page 3864]]

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 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.

[[Page 3865]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 3866]]

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.
  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

[[Page 3867]]

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.
  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

[[Page 3868]]

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 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.

                          ____________________