[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3874-3881]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             STIMULUS PLAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Griffith). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the Speaker for the recognition.
  Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I thought it is appropriate that we talk a 
little bit more about the stimulus plan, the spending plan that we will 
have on the floor of the House I believe tomorrow. In fact, the actual 
text of the bill has not been completely released yet. My understanding 
is that it become available at about 8:00 p.m. eastern time tonight. So 
we don't have the final wording on the stimulus bill. In fact, the

[[Page 3875]]

bill as it went to conference the other day was 1,425 pages.
  As you can see, this is going to be a daunting task for any Member of 
Congress to read through between 8:00 tonight and whatever time we have 
our vote tomorrow. But I do hope that many Members will take the time 
to spend as much time with the bill this evening as is practical, 
because obviously this is a very, very big bill. It encompasses a great 
deal of policy, both energy policy, health policy, some health 
information technology infrastructure policies we heard from the 
previous hour, and will affect the lives of literally every American 
over the next many, many years, because the cost of this bill is 
something that is going to be borne by Americans for the next decades. 
In fact, many Americans who have not been born yet will be bearing the 
consequences of this bill well into their adult lives, because the 
price tag of this bill as has been advertised will be just a little bit 
under $800 billion. Well, that is $800 billion, $788 billion, in actual 
spending.
  One of the things that we never do when we talk about the cost of 
bills here in the Federal Government, we never talk about it in terms 
of what someone would encounter in the real world if someone wanted to 
go out and borrow $788 billion for their business. Well, of course they 
would have to include the cost of capital, the cost of borrowing, the 
interest expense on a loan of that magnitude that they would have to 
carry on their balance sheets. Well, we don't bother ourselves about 
that in Congress. But if we were honest about it, the correct cost of 
that bill, just including the interest expense, would likely take it 
well over $1 trillion, perhaps in the range of $1.1 trillion or $1.2 
trillion.
  Why is this important? Well, it is important because we have got some 
other big spending priorities to come up this year. We ended the year, 
the last session of Congress, with a significant deficit of nearly $1 
trillion, and now we are talking about adding another $1 trillion in 
debt onto that. And this is money that we don't have sitting in the 
Federal Treasury; this is money that we will have to go out into the 
markets and borrow. And, as a consequence, it is important that we bear 
in mind what the effect of that borrowing activity will be on our 
monetary system here at home and, indeed, on the world markets at 
large.
  And, indeed, in this stimulus bill, in this spending bill as it is 
proposed to us as we have heard talked about earlier this evening, 
there are going to be a number of health care measures that are 
compressed into this bill.
  One of the things that we have heard about is the coverage with COBRA 
insurance. The reason that, when someone loses employment, if they wish 
to continue their employer-based insurance, their employer-sponsored 
insurance, obviously the employer is no longer paying the 66 percent 
that they were paying during that person's employment, so the cost of 
that insurance increases. So during the time of the stimulus bill, the 
proposal is that COBRA will be covered, or a portion of COBRA, 60 to 65 
percent of that expense will be covered by new spending in the stimulus 
bill.
  Other health care spending that is going to be in this bill will 
include an expanded role for Medicaid and an expanded amount of Federal 
money that goes into the Federal component of Medicaid, because 
Medicaid is a shared expense between the Federal Government and the 
State government. Currently, on average, about 57 cents out of every 
dollar spent in Medicaid has a Federal origination, and the other 
component, the other 43 cents is a State origination. But this stimulus 
bill will change that so-called Federal matching rate, and the Federal 
matching rate will increase 4 percent, 5 percent, or 6 percent, 
depending upon where those final numbers come down.
  Now, that will not be in perpetuity. That will be for a period of 
time, 12 months to 18 months into the future, purportedly to get us 
through the time of turmoil within the economy. And while that may be 
well intentioned, I would just certainly ask people to ask themselves 
and do a little bit of arithmetic: 18 months from now puts us very, 
very close to an election day in the year 2010. And if you think 
Congress has the courage to roll back a Medicare expenditure 1 month or 
2 months before election day, I think you'd better think that through 
again, because that is not likely to happen.
  So what is the effect of this? We are asking the American people to 
essentially take out what you might describe as a subprime loan. We are 
going to loan some money into the Medicaid system for a period of 
months, but there will be a balloon payment that comes due; that is, 
Congress will have to continue to fund those programs beyond 18 months. 
And, again, if we were honest about the cost of the bill, it clearly 
begins to expand well above that $1.1 trillion or $1.2 trillion, and 
now probably pushing up closer to the $2 trillion range, because there 
will be a large balloon payment that occurs at the end.
  So you might think in terms of the United States Congress as being a 
predatory lender or offering a subprime loan to the American people on 
this Medicaid proposal, because eventually, eventually, that money will 
have to be funded.
  Funding cliffs are something this Congress likes to do. We see them 
all the time. When we encounter the perennial problem with a reduction 
in rate for reimbursement of physicians, we say, ``Oh, no problem. We 
will fix that.'' But then there is always another cliff. Right now, we 
have a cliff coming up in December of 2009 which we have failed to 
address. In fact, I asked if it would not be reasonable, since it 
seemed to be that there was so much money available to borrow and spend 
right now, maybe we could just go ahead and fix that little problem 
early and not wait until December of this year to have our physicians 
fall off that funding cliff.
  In fact, in a discussion I had with a reporter from the New York 
Times, Robert Pear, when I was trying to explain the intricacies of 
getting some additional money into this program he questioned where 
that money might come from. And, in exasperation, I pointed out that, 
``Money was no object right now. It is raining money. Money is coming 
from all corners. So why not fix this problem?'' Well, we all 
understand that that money will have to be repaid. And when that 
repayment comes, it is going to come at a very steep price.
  I had an opportunity to go with several other Members to the Bureau 
of Public Debt earlier this week, on Tuesday, and I watched the auction 
of $32 billion in debt that the United States Government was putting up 
for auction to various entities around the world that might want to buy 
United States debt. $32 billion, these were going to be notes that 
matured in 3 years.
  There was a 30-minute auction. All of the notes were sold at a fairly 
low interest rate, 1.3 percent, and certainly the Treasury had no 
problem in satisfying that sale. But it certainly begs the question as 
we continue. This was the third such sale that day, each at a little 
over $30 billion. You do some quick math and you think, wow, so that 
was almost $100 billion that the Treasury auctioned off in short-term 
and medium-term debt this past week. And, in fact, that is going on 
week in and week out. There are one or two auction days a week that are 
occurring, and currently we are auctioning off between $100 billion and 
$200 billion of debt every week.
  With this stimulus bill that we are enacting, we are going to put 
additional pressure on that system, on that Bureau of Public Debt in 
order to distribute that paper amongst the various lenders across the 
globe who will be interested in buying our Treasury notes. And you have 
to ask yourself, who is going to be buying those notes, that paper, as 
it becomes available? Well, typically there are foreign entities who 
are willing to buy American IOUs. After all, the state of the economy 
not just in America but around the world is somewhat unsettled, and 
there is a flight to quality, and dollars are still seen as quality.
  But as more and more of this debt is sold, what will happen or what 
could happen is there will be less and less enthusiasm for purchasing 
that debt;

[[Page 3876]]

then, the interest rate will of necessity rise to make that debt more 
attractive to those people who are purchasing. And for all of that 
money that goes up there, those are dollars then that cannot be 
borrowed by the private sector because they are being taken up in debt 
that is being sold by the Federal Government. And of course, then there 
is the cost, as I alluded to earlier, the cost of capital. And 
eventually that cost is going to be borne, probably not by people in my 
age bracket, but by people in age brackets that are younger than myself 
and perhaps some individuals who have not even yet been born.
  But this is from where those stimulus dollars are going to need to 
arise. So bear that in mind tomorrow as you watch the debate and watch 
the impassioned rhetoric on how important it is that we spend these 
dollars, and spend them quickly, because action must be taken, 
something must be done.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that the economy is in tough shape in this 
country. I understand that people are hurting. I understand that 
businesses, particularly small businesses, are suffering.
  At the same time, as we roll out this massive spending bill we have 
to ask ourselves: Are we spending money simply to satisfy political 
constituencies? Or, are we actually trying to create the jobs that we 
maintain to everyone that we want to create? The problem is so many 
questionable items that occur in this nonstimulative spending bill that 
we have before us. And you have heard it all before: The money for the 
National Endowments of the Arts. I think in the previous hour we saw a 
nice little picture of a wetland marsh mouse somewhere out in 
California, additional money to study climate change, additional money 
for Pell Grants, money for educational expenses for building schools. A 
reasonable expense. But does it belong in an emergency stimulus 
measure; or, should that go through the regular order of title I 
funding, which we are obligated to do every year anyway?
  We will do this stimulus bill, but don't forget, we never did eight 
out of our required 13 appropriations bills last year, so we have got 
what is called an omnibus bill coming at us. And, oh, yeah, there will 
be a housing bill where we will have to come back with more money for 
Fannie and Freddie. And there will likely be another TARP-type bailout 
coming our way if we are to believe the comments of the new Secretary 
of the Treasury. And, likely as not, there will be an additional 
Department of Defense emergency spending bill that will come our way 
sometime between the end of the spring and the end of the summer. So 
there is a lot of unscheduled spending that is yet to occur. And 
remember that all of that spending, all of that spending will come down 
to the sale of public debt at the Bureau of Public Debt in those 
auctions that I was describing.
  I have been joined by some of my colleagues. And in order to be fair 
with the distribution of the time, let me yield such time as he may 
consume to my colleague from Texas, the Honorable Judge Ted Poe.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I want to thank you for yielding, Dr. Burgess. I 
appreciate your comments, especially on the health care portions of 
that. It is an issue that the country needs to solve eventually, the 
whole concept of health care.
  But the stimulus bill is before us. We have yet to see this bill. We 
know it is going to be several hundred pages long when it is finally 
brought to the House floor. I suspect that if we want to read it, most 
of us will need to stay up all night and read the bill so that we can 
be adequately prepared to debate it and vote on it tomorrow.
  I wish that we weren't trying to rush this bill to the floor, and do 
as the House voted earlier this week, that at least 72 hours before a 
bill is voted on, it would be posted on the Internet for not only us to 
read but for the American public to read. For some reason that rule 
that we agreed on has been overlooked in this stimulus bill; and, at 
least we should wait until Saturday or Monday so that we can get a 
lively debate.

                              {time}  1900

  And at least we should wait until Saturday or Monday so that we can 
get a lively debate. But be that as it may, we've heard a lot of 
numbers regarding this so-called ``stimulus'' bill. And I think it is 
appropriate to ask a question that I've asked a lot of people, both 
those that are in favor of the bill and those that are opposed to the 
bill as it currently stands. Where are we going to get the money to pay 
for this? And generally I don't get an answer from anyone. That doesn't 
seem to be a concern that a lot of people have here on the House floor, 
for some reason, about where the money is going to come from. I think 
that is a valid question because I've been getting a lot of calls from 
people in southeast Texas wanting to know how much it is going to cost 
them to stimulate the economy.
  Well, a couple of numbers. The bill is about $800 billion. As you 
mentioned, it is going to be about $300 billion additional because of 
the debt that we will have to obtain for this bill. So we're talking 
about $1,100,000,000,000. We don't have that kind of money. We're going 
to have to borrow it, as you said, probably from the Chinese. It kind 
of bothers me that we pay interest to the Chinese on American debt. 
That is another issue.
  But down the road, eventually, somebody is going to have to pay for 
this $1.1 trillion. That amounts to about $10,000 per every family in 
the United States. So every family in the United States is going to be 
responsible for $10,000 to help stimulate the economy. We still don't 
know whether it will help or not. But that is the cost. Someone will 
have to pay for it. Eventually, debt has to be paid. Even the Federal 
Government's debt has to be paid. And with all of these programs, the 
bailout bills from last year, the bailout bills that we hear coming 
down the pike that we haven't even voted on yet, and other stimulus 
packages, we're now told all of this is going to cost about 
$9,700,000,000,000. Now we're talking about real money, Dr. Burgess, 
when we're talking about $9,700,000,000,000. And that is the biggest 
number I have ever seen. It is hard for me to write it down. I have it 
on a chart over there. It took two charts to put that number on there.
  And that amounts to about $1,500 for every person that lives on 
planet Earth. That is how much money $9,700,000,000,000 is. And that is 
debt we're going to acquire for stimulus packages, bailout packages, 
more stimulus packages that we hear are coming later this year. Now 
that is a lot of money. Somebody has to pay. Unfortunately, the 
American taxpayer has to pay it. Taxpayers always have to pay. It has 
been that way, and it is unfortunate that they are being saddled with 
that debt, still not even understanding it, and it is very questionable 
whether this stimulus package will work.
  We have heard from the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan 
group that is a bunch of mathematicians that does a lot of accounting 
for us. They told us that even if it passed the stimulus package, it 
probably will not help the economy in a positive way. Now that is 
really disturbing to spend all this money and it not work.
  Now there is one project in this bill that I want to mention. There 
are a lot of them that have been mentioned tonight and they have been 
mentioned yesterday. But one of the projects that is in the bill that 
the House didn't even vote on--as you know, the third bill, the 
conference bill, is a bill that is written behind closed doors with 
very little input from both sides--and there is $8 billion for high-
speed rail, another $400 million for Amtrak. And specifically, one of 
the new rail projects is going to be from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. Now 
that is not going to affect or help people down in southeast Texas. I 
mean Amtrak goes through Beaumont in my district, but Hurricane Ike 
blew away the station, so it doesn't even stop there anymore. All 
that's there for Amtrak is a concrete slab. But anyway, I don't 
understand why we're building high-speed rail from Los Angeles into Las 
Vegas. Are we trying to get folks into Las Vegas to gamble? Are we 
trying to get folks into

[[Page 3877]]

Las Vegas to see the new mob museum that this bill provides for? That's 
right. The mob museum, where taxpayers are going to pay money to build 
a museum to organized crime in Las Vegas. Yes, it is in that bill. And 
it disturbs me that we are trying to stimulate the economy with all of 
these, what I think, are earmarks that are put in the bill for special 
interest groups. Maybe we do and maybe we don't need high-speed rail 
from Los Angeles to Las Vegas so people can go out there and spend 
their money. I don't know. But that doesn't create jobs for Americans. 
It certainly doesn't create jobs for most Americans.
  You are correct. We need to do something. We have to help this 
economy, not hinder the economy with the stimulus package. And one way 
that I see is maybe back up, look at the whole concept of spending 
money we don't have, and maybe rethink that and not spend money. But 
yet, let Americans keep more of their own money to begin with, not take 
money from them like the government does and then dole it out a little 
bit in $500 checks. That doesn't work. Maybe not take their money to 
begin with. Maybe tell all Americans, and maybe Congress ought to think 
this through, everybody who pays taxes and reports their taxes ought to 
get a tax cut across the board, and then they will have more of their 
own money, and they can decide how to spend their money and stimulate 
the economy the way they decide, rather than Big Brother up here in 
Washington trying to make that decision for them.
  I think that is something we ought to have the debate on. We haven't 
had that debate because we're rushing to pass this bill because we have 
to get it passed before Valentine's Day. That is what we have been 
told. And I thank the gentleman for his efforts on this. And I'm glad 
that we're having at least a discussion about some alternatives 
tonight.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for his keen insight into the 
problems that face us. And I guess being somewhat of a student of 
irony, I would just point out if you're rushing to get something done 
before Valentine's Day, you're very apt to pass a very large spending 
bill on Friday the 13th. And so that is perhaps one of the things we 
have facing us tomorrow.
  I also need to point out that Republicans have been very involved in 
generating alternative strategies and alternative proposals and have 
put them forth on this floor confidently night after night, day after 
day. A plan from Representative Cantor's office, our minority whip, 
detailed immediate tax relief for working families, tax relief for 
small business, no tax increases to pay for spending, assistance for 
the unemployed and stabilizing home values. That formed the core of the 
Republican plan that was offered as an alternative to this massive, 
massive spending plan that has been proposed to us by the Democratic 
House leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I know many people will wonder if there is anything, if 
there is a way to interact with their Member of Congress. There always 
is, Mr. Speaker. There are ways, of course, that people can interact 
with their Member of Congress or with the leadership of the House. And 
perhaps that is something that, Mr. Speaker, the American people should 
consider during this next 24 or 48 hours before we vote on this bill.
  I see I have been joined by other Members, and not to make this too 
Texas centric, I will be happy to yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who is on the House Financial 
Services Committee and the former chairman of the House Republican 
Study Committee.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank my 
friend for his leadership in helping educate the American people, in 
this case they no longer need it, on the perils involved in this so-
called ``stimulus'' bill. And Mr. Speaker, I guess it is a stimulus 
bill. It is a bill to stimulate Big Government. Unfortunately, it is 
not a bill to stimulate our economy.
  When I come to the House floor, I understand that elections have 
consequences. And I usually don't complain about the process. But I 
must note that when Speaker Pelosi took over the speakership of the 
House of Representatives, she said publicly that she wanted a new day 
to dawn, that we would have more openness, more transparency, that 
there would be input from the minority. It is not true. Not one 
meeting, not one meeting with the Republican leadership with respect to 
this bill. There are no amendments allowed on the floor. She told us 
that it was immoral the debt that we were placing on future generations 
and that with Democrats in control of the House of Representatives and 
of this government, that they would end deficit spending.
  And now, according to the Congressional Budget Office, we're looking 
at the largest single increase in the deficit that we've seen in our 
history. And it wasn't, what, 48 hours ago that on this very floor we 
voted as a House to ensure that the American people had at least 48 
hours to view what the press says will be a 1,400-page bill, the single 
most expensive piece of legislation in the history of America. And Mr. 
Speaker, as I look at the clock, it is a little after 7 o'clock East 
Coast time, and we're due to vote on this thing tomorrow. I haven't 
seen the bill. I don't know if my colleagues have seen the bill. I 
doubt seriously the American people have seen the bill. I stand 
corrected. Apparently the gentleman from Texas has one hot off the 
press.
  Mr. BURGESS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HENSARLING. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. BURGESS. I actually brought this as a prop. This was a copy of 
the bill as it went to conference on the 10th. So this is 2 days old. 
It is 1,425 pages. Knowing how things work around here, I doubt it has 
gotten smaller in the last 48 hours.
  I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, people are hurting in this economy. 
Personal friends of mine, hardworking, smart individuals and well 
educated individuals are laid off from their jobs. People are having to 
dig deep into their savings. People are running out of their savings. 
And so the Republicans have come up with not just a theory, but a piece 
of legislation that is backed up by history that can help preserve 
jobs, help create jobs, help expand that take-home pay for American 
families, help the unemployed, and get to the root cause, the root 
cause of this economic calamity, and that is to help remove some of 
this excess real estate from the market.
  Every time we have faced a recession, you can go to earlier this 
decade, you can go back to 1981 and 1982. You can go back to the 
Kennedy administration, every time you lower marginal rates for 
hardworking American people, you expand their paychecks. And that is 
how you expand the economy. But, Mr. Speaker, when you look at this 
bill, less than 18 percent of this bill has anything to do with tax 
relief. And at least in the last version we were able to see, since the 
Democrats have not had the courtesy to show us what we're going to vote 
on tomorrow, less than 3 percent of that was geared towards small 
businesses. The job engine in America is small business.
  I looked at this bill, and there is next to nothing, next to nothing 
for the small businesses that I represent in the Fifth Congressional 
District of Texas. I looked at the House version that was voted on 
earlier. I can tell you, there is nothing in it for First Choice Tax 
Service in Seagoville, Texas. I looked very hard. I can find nothing 
for Gator Auto Transport in Canton. I really looked down deep, and 
there is nothing here for Tallyho Plastics in Jacksonville, Texas. 
Nothing to preserve jobs and create jobs in small business. Instead, 
what we have is a 40-year wish list of the left to grow Big Government.
  And so that is why we see debt service and growing Big Government is 
about 80 percent of this legislation. That is why we give $200 million 
for computer centers at community colleges and $10 million for urban 
canals. I'm not completely certain what an urban canal is, but I'm 
fairly certain that the taxpayers, the struggling families, the 
struggling small businesses of the Fifth District of Texas don't want

[[Page 3878]]

to pay for it. There is $255 million for a polar icebreaker for the 
Coast Guard. Now, Mr. Speaker maybe the Coast Guard does need a new 
polar icebreaker. But somebody needs to explain to me and my 
constituents how that is going to stimulate the economy and how that is 
going to make their paycheck safer. I don't see it. There is $75 
million for the Smithsonian Institution. I love the Smithsonian. But 
Mr. Speaker, this doesn't stimulate the economy. There is $20 million 
to remove fish passage barriers. Maybe the fish enjoy it. But again, I 
see nothing in it for the small businesses in America. And I think it 
is such a pivotal point in our Nation's history. What a poor charade, a 
poor charade on the American people.
  In a spate of candor, the former chairman of the Democratic 
Congressional Campaign Committee, now Chief of Staff to the President, 
said to his former colleagues, our friends on the other side of the 
aisle, the Democrats, ``never let a serious crisis go to waste.'' And 
Mr. Speaker, I assure you, they haven't.

                              {time}  1915

  And they have loaded it up with every big government idea known to 
mankind. And I see we have other colleagues here, and I don't want to 
dominate all the time.
  But I think it's also important, Mr. Speaker, that we know that when 
you look at this so-called stimulus bill, this bill to stimulate big 
government, it's been tried before. Anybody who has studied economic 
history knows about Japan's lost decade. In fact, I have a recent story 
from the New York Times dated February 6, not exactly a bastion of 
conservative thought, I might add, Mr. Speaker. It's entitled ``Japan's 
Big-Works Stimulus is a Lesson.'' And it talks about the time when 
Japan faced a similar economic challenge.
  And it says, ``During those 2 decades, Japan accumulated the largest 
public debt in the developed world, totaling 180 percent of its 
economy, while failing to generate a convincing recovery.''
  I read further in the article. ``This has led many to conclude that 
spending did little more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an 
enormous tax burden for future generations.''
  I've studied the model. The Democrat stimulus bill is based on that 
model. You know what happened? Not only did Japan have the highest per 
capita debt of any industrialized nation in the world, they didn't 
create any new jobs in the entire decade of the nineties. Their per 
capita income went from second in the world to tenth in the world, and 
they left a legacy of debt for generations to come.
  And that's why, Mr. Speaker, I'm so sad to come to this House floor, 
knowing that this body, the People's House, is on the precipice of 
doing exactly the same thing. And so I come down to this House floor to 
raise my voice. I'm the father of two small children, a 5-year-old and 
a 6-year-old. I don't want to leave them a legacy of debt that this 
bill will leave them, the largest single debt in American history. How 
are they ever, ever going to work that off?
  There's an alternative. Help small businesses. Increase the family 
paycheck. Help the unemployed. Get the excess housing off the market. 
It's the Republican alternative. It is the alternative that creates 
twice as many jobs at half the cost, and does not leave an 
unconscionable, unconscionable and immoral debt burden on our children 
and grandchildren.
  And so I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his 
leadership. And I yield back.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman too. There's no one in Congress 
who has spoken with more eloquence and clarity on the problems of 
government spending and government debt.
  I wonder if the gentleman would maintain his position for one moment, 
just for the purposes of a colloquy. Of course, as you so correctly 
pointed out, Democratic leadership did not involve the Republican 
Members of the House in crafting a solution to the Nation's economic 
difficulties.
  But to his credit, our new President did come and spend an hour with 
us a week or so ago. And it was about exactly an hour more than the 
Democratic leadership had spent with us up until that time. But in that 
hour, I was particularly struck by an exchange between you and the 
President as far as on the issue of that long term debt that we are 
assigning to those that will come after us.
  I will yield to the gentleman. Would you share with this body the 
result of that exchange.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And indeed, 
President Obama, contrary to Speaker Pelosi, did reach out a hand to 
Republicans. He met with all the Republicans in the House of 
Representatives, something I don't think Speaker Pelosi has ever done. 
He met with our leadership twice in trying to craft legislation. I give 
him the utmost credit for that.
  I don't know our President well. I've met him a few times, but he 
struck me as a very sincere and honest man. And we disagree on many 
aspects of the stimulus bill. But the exchange I had with him, I know 
that he is also a father of two small children. And it's so easy in 
Washington to spend other people's money and hand the bill to the next 
generation. Frankly, it happens here every single day of the week.
  And I just asked the President and implored the President, please, 
Mr. President, please, Mr. President, before you sign this piece of 
legislation, in whatever final form it may be, think first of your 
children, my children and the Nation's children and how will we ever 
pay for this.
  Now, again, he disagreed with me on certain issues, but I believe he 
was sincere and passionate in his concern about this debt. And I 
believe he made a commitment to us, and I hope he'll have ample 
opportunities in his term as President to see it good, that, regardless 
of what the cost is of this legislation, that he knows that other 
legislation will be necessary. And I believe--I don't want to quote the 
President. People will have to, reporters can talk to him about what he 
said.
  But what I thought I heard him say is that if all we passed is this 
stimulus bill, we would be doing a disservice to future generations. So 
I'll take him at his word.
  I don't believe this is the right legislation. I feel he has concern, 
but I'm always, always curious how Speaker Pelosi and some of my other 
friends on the other side of the aisle think that we will ever, ever, 
ever, be able to pay off this debt. And I certainly want to give the 
President plenty of opportunities in the future to do something about 
that.
  And again, I thank the gentleman for his leadership. I thank him for 
yielding.
  Mr. BURGESS. And I thank the gentleman from Texas for sharing that 
very personal story with us.
  As the gentleman points out, Speaker Pelosi does owe, perhaps this 
body an explanation as to how that debt will be paid.
  Of course, the State of Texas would be nothing without the State of 
Tennessee, so I'm now happy to yield such time as she may consume to 
gentlelady from Tennessee, a fellow member of my Committee on Energy 
and Commerce, the Honorable Marsha Blackburn.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Texas. And I thank him for 
his leadership on this issue, and also for leadership on health care 
and for his passion and concern for the American people and their 
ability to control their health care information and to retain that 
relationship they have between the physician and the patient. And we 
know that from actions in this bill that relationship will be damaged, 
and possibly could be done away with, and a bureaucrat at the 
Comparative Analysis Center beginning to make decisions on what kind of 
health care individuals can seek.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise tonight, and I follow right along with the 
comments from the gentleman from Texas. I have deep and abiding 
concerns about this legislation.
  We are in a recession. The American people want to see action. This 
is not the action that they want. Indeed, I have had constituents that 
have called and e-mailed, and local officials who have said, you know, 
stop, and do this right. Do not give us a spending bill

[[Page 3879]]

that is going to leave us with an insurmountable debt.
  Today is the birthday, the 9-month birthday of my first grandchild. 
His name is Jack Ketchel. And as Jack turns 9 months old today, Jack is 
receiving from the Federal Government a $35,000 debt. Tomorrow Jack's 
share of the national debt will go up. By the time young Jack Ketchel 
turns 21 and starts to enter the work force, there is no telling what 
that is going to be because Jack is going to be heaped upon his head, 
and he will see this every single year, a growing debt that comes from 
a growing deficit that comes because Members of this body chose to take 
the easy way out, to grow government, to pass a government stimulus 
bill; not a stimulus bill, Mr. Speaker, that would address the needs of 
the American people, not a stimulus bill that is going to encourage 
small business and private sector growth, but a stimulus bill that is 
going to include in it nearly a thousand pages. And by the way, the 
gentleman from Texas has the size of the bill as it passed the House.
  Mr. Speaker, this body, the members of the Democrat leadership in 
this body and in the Senate, will choose to spend 1,206,185,567 
taxpayer dollars. That is a billion dollars, $1.2 billion per page of 
that bill. That is what they're spending.
  Now, you know, I thought this was to be the Congress that was about 
the children. I think that we are going to look back at this, I think 
our children are going to look at this and our grandchildren are going 
to look at this and say, no, this was the Congress that fleeced the 
children and the grandchildren. And it grieves my heart that my 
grandchild, and my grandchild that is going to be born in June, are 
going to face limited opportunities and a future that, many times, may 
be in jeopardy because the economic health of our Nation is impaired by 
the debt that we have.
  We know, Mr. Speaker, that economic freedom and political freedom are 
inextricably linked. They go hand in hand. And when we choose to spend 
for the moment instead of planning for the future, we jeopardize that 
future.
  Now, we have to stop and say, as we look at this bill, there's $400 
million in here for a social services block grant. There's $30 million 
for the San Francisco Bay area wetland project to save a mouse. There's 
$125 million for D.C. sewers. There is $140 billion to the States to 
reward States that have not planned for a balanced budget that they are 
mandated to have by their State constitutions. It includes 31 new 
programs and growth in 70 government programs. This is a big government 
stimulus bill.
  I think it is a very sad day. We know our Nation is in recession. We 
know the American people want action. They are begging this body to 
halt and to not pass this bill. It is a spending bill, Mr. Speaker. It 
is not a stimulus bill.
  I yield back to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentlelady for her comments.
  I think I heard earlier today that if the total spending in this bill 
were to be returned to the taxpayers, there would be no tax liability 
on families earning under $150,000 a year between now and some time in 
the middle of the fall. Imagine what the American people would do if we 
would take that type of tax burden off of them, even for a very short 
period of time.
  Well, I've been joined by other members of the Republican Conference, 
and I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Utah, the Honorable Mr. Bishop.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank you. I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
allowing me to have a few words on this body about this significant 
issue, which is tomorrow's vote on the stimulus package.
  I, like many people, perhaps I'm a little bit older than a lot of 
people here, but I was born in the early 1950s. This was the Eisenhower 
era when the United States was taking its role as the true leader of 
the world. It was an era of optimism. It wasn't always smooth sailing 
at all times, because we clearly remember the economic conditions when 
Ronald Reagan became President equaled and surpassed the situations we 
are facing today. That was an era when mortgage rates were 20 percent, 
and inflation was 14 percent. Unemployment was in the double digits 
throughout this entire country. And yet, at that time, in the 1980s 
there was something within the core value of American citizens that 
allowed them to respond and to rebound and to solve that problem.
  And, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Burgess of Texas, I am convinced that within 
the core value of Americans today we still have that which it takes to 
respond and rebound to face this situation where we are and to move 
forward in a positive way. We will succeed at this time. There is 
nothing that will hold us down.
  The only question that we really have is the vote tomorrow. Is that 
something that helps propel us to the solution of this dilemma, or is 
it one that actually hinders us in reaching that solution?

                              {time}  1930

  I am still confident Americans can do it because Americans have 
always been underestimated.
  In the 1700s, the theory in England was that these colonies had their 
atmospheric conditions, they said, which meant that anything over here 
would be in a permanent state of decay and deterioration. Nothing 
permanent could be built in these colonies. Now, as somebody who 
actually grew up and lives in the desert part of America, with these 
atmospheric conditions, of which they mean humidity back here, I have 
to agree there is some truth to that.
  The bottom line is still, when Alexander Hamilton wrote the 
Federalist Papers, he challenged Americans to respond to that image 
that the Europeans had of us and to build a system of government that 
would transpire anything in the transatlantic community, and we 
responded with a divinely inspired Constitution.
  After the Civil War, months after the Civil War ended and Lincoln was 
assassinated, there were many people who thought: Will violence be the 
way of life on this entire continent? But Americans responded, and we 
built an empire from coast to coast.
  During World War II, Hitler thought that this Nation was too weak in 
our democracies and in our traditions to ever respond militarily to the 
danger that he sent, but the greatest generation responded to the 
greatest challenge, and we did greatness, not only out of one plank but 
in the Pacific theater as well.
  In the 1970s, when we were facing the same kind of economic 
difficulties we are facing today, there were those people who said we 
should just cut our losses and run, that the U.S.S.R. would always be 
superior to us in our manufacturing and material bases. We can never 
succeed with them. Just make the best deal possible. Once again, 
Americans responded, and we won the Cold War. Americans will respond to 
this particular challenge as well.
  Now, I understand how difficult it is for people. I'll take that 
back. Having grown up in the '50s, I don't understand how difficult it 
is for people who have been in the condition of losing their jobs, but 
I do want this body to know that my father was 26 when the Depression 
hit. He was a young father with a new family, and he lost his job. It 
was doubly significant because his brother had been his employer and 
had to let him go. So he moved back to Utah, and for 2 years in the 
height of that Depression, he did not have full-time employment. He had 
odd jobs. He was doing the best he could. He was growing a large garden 
to feed his family, which I used to hate because, when I was younger, I 
had to weed that thing, but that was what he went through.
  I do admit his first real job in 2 years was a New Deal program. He 
became an administrator in the CCC program and then in the PWA and then 
in the housing authority.
  My father also told me to be wary of the government jobs like the one 
he had because, as he said, ``When the government program ended, so did 
my job.'' What he really needed and what he eventually attained was a 
real job in the real world, which even though the

[[Page 3880]]

programs he had under those entities no longer exist, the job he was 
doing afterwards is still being done by somebody else today.
  As my father advised me, our goal has to be looking to find a way to 
stimulate real employment. A stimulus bill is always a risky thing to 
do. Most stimulus bills always work after the recession is over, and by 
putting money into the economy, a stimulus bill does something that 
spurs it on, but for the government to get that money, it has to pull 
it out in the form of borrowing, which spurs it down. A tax increase is 
also counterproductive, but a tax decrease, especially to small 
business, which creates 50 percent of the jobs in this country, would 
not have a negative aspect, but would have a positive stimulating 
aspect into what we are trying to do. Those are the kinds of jobs my 
father told me we should venerate and that we should try and do.
  Now, the question we have is the same thing that President Obama said 
when he spoke to us that first time when he reached out to us. He said 
his economic advisers told him that a stimulus bill correctly 
structured could have an impact that is positive on our economy. The 
question we have to ask is: Is the bill that we will be voting on 
tomorrow correctly structured?
  I think what we have found with the other versions of that bill is, 
the longer people look at it, the greater their questions as to: Is 
this really something that will produce jobs for real Americans or are 
we simply spending money on government growth? Are we wasting the money 
in short-term employment and not building long-term employment?
  As the gentleman from Texas has already said, we were promised 48 
hours to look at it or it was intimated it would be 48 hours. 
Obviously, I'm getting older, so I must have misunderstood. It was not 
48 hours to look at it. They probably said we would have 4 to 8 hours 
to look at it. In that regard, it will probably be accurate.
  As a history teacher, I am reading a book about the Depression, which 
scares me to no end. Contrary to what many people think, Herbert Hoover 
was an activist President. He was excited when the crash hit because it 
was his opportunity, in his words, to reshape government. The first 
thing he did was pass a government stimulus bill. To add other ironies 
to the situation, because it was a worldwide situation, other countries 
were sending a lot of bullion into the United States, but the Federal 
Reserve thought it would be inflationary, so they specifically 
instituted programs to make sure that that money would not be 
circulated and that it would stay put in special places. It's kind of 
like when the bailout money was supposed to go out to try and circulate 
money through the economy. Instead, it has stayed put in place and has 
not gone down to community banks and to credit unions and to small 
people who need those types of loans.
  Now, I still think there is hope because there is an alternative out 
there. The Republican Party has placed an alternative whose goal is not 
just to create or to save 3 million jobs but, by using principles that 
we know to be true, to create 6 million real jobs, long-lasting jobs in 
the sector that will remain the private sector.
   I am pledged to try and see if we can actually pass that because 
that is something that would provide relief to this country. That is 
the way Americans can respond to win in this situation. Otherwise, we 
will still ask the question: Did we craft this stimulus bill correctly? 
I think the more we look at it, probably after it has passed, the more 
and more we will answer, no, we did not. We blew a wonderful 
opportunity that we had.
  I thank you for allowing me the chance to say a few things about this 
particular bill. I yield back to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. He is correct, 
the hour is late. I am afraid the cake is almost baked, as they say. I 
have some other Members who wish to speak on this.
  Mr. Speaker, might I ask as to how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has approximately 
10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the Speaker.
  The remaining Members who wish to speak, help me be judicious with 
the time, but let me yield a few moments to the gentleman from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Congressman Burgess, Dr. Burgess, for 
hosting the hour tonight.
  We all know the economy is in very difficult straits. Families are 
hurting; businesses are taking downturns, and people, in general, are 
suffering. I do not want to see any family face unemployment or 
foreclosure or see any business take a downturn, but I think the 
question before us is: What is the right thing to do?
  There is not a Member of this body nor a member of the administration 
who is not carrying that heavy burden in his heart--we understand 
that--but I do think that we should ask the right question: What is the 
responsible, appropriate response to maximize economic productivity and 
to create jobs in order to help families?
  Dr. Burgess, you might be interested in knowing that we have a long 
tradition as the Nebraska delegation. A group of Nebraskans--anybody 
who is in town during the week--meets for breakfast on Wednesday 
mornings. It has been going on for 66 years. One of the things that I 
like to do with constituents who are in town is to just give a basic 
overview of the Federal budget.
  I hope you can see this adequately, but this is basically the Federal 
budget. This is the projected budget for fiscal 2009. It is $3.5 
trillion. Basically, this is where the expenditures go. The red part of 
the pie is what we call up here in Washington ``mandatory 
expenditures,'' including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, as well 
as other expenditures, which include food stamps, farm payments, the 
Earned Income Tax Credit, as well as unemployment insurance and Federal 
worker benefits.
  This plus net interest on the debt is well over 60 percent of the 
entire Federal budget. National defense is in an area of this purple 
sector of the pie. We call that up here in Washington ``discretionary'' 
because we tend to haggle over it, but it is about 18 percent of the 
overall Federal budget. This small sliver right here is called 
``nondefense discretionary,'' and that is where other important 
programmatic elements lie.
  Many of the constituents who come up here come to talk to us about 
that very small area of the budget, whether that's parks or roads or 
programs to meet special education needs and a variety of governmental 
functions.
  This chart is very telling as well because it shows where our 
revenues come from. In fiscal 2009, the revenue estimates are $2.4 
trillion.
  Now, you'll remember the expenditure chart, $3.5 trillion. To do a 
quick little bit of math, it says a $1.1 trillion budget deficit for 
this year for our ordinary budget. This is where the money comes from. 
Individual income tax is about 45 percent, which is in the purple area 
of the pie here. This maroon area is the corporate income. Corporate 
income tax is about 10 percent. Payroll taxes are about 40 percent. 
There are others--the excise, estate and gift taxes.
  But it's that figure that I want to talk about, the $1.1 trillion. 
Unfortunately, our process here, in order to create an opportunity to 
help their economy, has resulted in an unrestrained, unsustainable, 
massive, Washington-style spending bill that will be very, very 
difficult to reverse.
  Before the year 2000, by the way, the Federal budget was about $1.8 
trillion. This year, it is almost going to be double that at $3.5 
trillion. We have been on a massive spending spree, and it should have 
been stimulated, but here we find ourselves in serious economic 
straits.
  I was on the radio the other day, and the radio announcer said that 
it's very difficult to get your mind around $1 trillion--and it really 
is--but think about this. The very deficit that we're leaving, should 
this bill pass along with other expenditures at this time, is larger 
than the Federal Government's entire expenditures were just a few

[[Page 3881]]

short years ago. The deficit this year will be larger than that of the 
entire Federal Government before the year 2000. That is a very serious 
problem because we are going to pass debt on to children or we are 
going to sell the wealth asset value of this country overseas. That is 
a shift of the wealth of this country into the hands of foreign debt 
holders or we are simply going to monetize it and are going to create 
inflation, which is a regressive form of taxation, particularly for the 
poor. These are very serious issues.
  So, if we are to do a stimulus that is appropriate, it needs to be 
targeted and temporary, moving tomorrow's decisions to today in order 
to maximize economic leverage and to create jobs. We should also have 
some basic outline of a plan to pay for it. So those are some of the 
real dilemmas here that I see that I wanted to come down and point out.
  Thank you for hashing this out, not only among Members but for anyone 
who might be watching. I thank you for the time.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. Again, he 
points out an excellent point that the level of debt is unsustainable, 
and the rate of growth of those so-called ``mandatory expenditures'' is 
in the range of 6 to 9 percent a year.
  Let me yield a few moments to the gentleman from Texas, Judge 
Gohmert, to speak eloquently on this subject.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I don't know about eloquently, but I am certainly 
coming from the heart.
  There are a lot of people who we've heard from who are hurting, and 
they had great hopes because we elected a President who said he brought 
hope. Yet what we have seen so far is not hope. It is not change. It is 
the same thing Secretary Paulson started. It's just throwing more money 
at the wrong places.
  So what we have heard--and again, as my friend from Texas has pointed 
out--is that we do not have a final bill. We are supposed to vote 
tomorrow on the biggest spending bill in the history of the world, not 
just of this country, and we still do not have the bill. The latest 
information we've heard is that people, the taxpayers, are down to--it 
has kept coming down--what may be $800 per family. It may be less than 
that. It depends on your circumstances. People were promised better 
than that.
  There is a plan out there that has been proposed. I don't care who 
puts his name on it. It is a very good plan. It puts money immediately 
in people's next paychecks. If we pass it tomorrow, they could have it 
in their checks as soon as the President signs it. They could have it 
that day or the next day. It's a tax holiday where people get their own 
withholding, where they get their own FICA back. For the small 
businesses, they don't have to pay FICA in, and it's paid for by money 
that has already been allocated.
  When I brought this up to President Obama a few weeks ago, I really 
think he was genuine.
  He said, ``Oh, have you talked to Larry Summers about that?'' his 
Harvard economist, and Larry was standing behind him.
  I said, ``No. I'd love to talk to Larry about it.''
  So Larry steps out, and he said, ``Oh, do you have a card?'' I gave 
him my card. He said, ``Yes, I'll give you a call.''
  After I didn't hear for a week or so, I called, and I made clear that 
the President had said, ``Call Larry Summers and talk to him.'' So I 
waited. Eventually, I got connected. Was it Larry Summers? No. It was 
some young man named Brian. It was his voice mail. I thought maybe it 
was a mistake. So I've called back since then, and they always put me 
through to some voice mail of some young man named Brian. I'm sure he's 
a fine young man. They're not interested--apparently, Larry isn't or 
whoever is advising this administration--in letting they money get back 
to the people who can do the most good.

                              {time}  1945

  And the average median income a household was going to get, on the 
average, $2,000 or more, the average. I mean, that's hardworking 
families getting a couple of thousand dollars to catch up on things
  Now that is a stimulus. That would allow them to do all kinds of 
things and get--including getting a down payment for a nongas-guzzling 
car like someone had told me.
  The American people can get us stimulated and going if the 
government, if the people that are in charge in this House and in the 
Senate and in the White House, had had enough confidence like so many 
of us do.
  And I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I hope that people, Mr. 
Speaker, will let our Speaker, the majority leader in the Senate, Harry 
Reid, and the President know they can stimulate the economy if they get 
to have some of their own money back.
  Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman brings up an excellent point, and maybe 
the Speaker people perhaps should weigh in on that issue with our 
leadership.

                          ____________________