[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6679-6686]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to call attention to our 
economy and the fiscal discipline we need to implement to get our 
country back on the right path.
  Right now, the American people are hurting; and Republicans want to 
work with the President to get the American people back to work. We 
want to get the economy going again. But we do know, and the American 
people know, we cannot tax, spend, and borrow our way back to a healthy 
economy. So we

[[Page 6680]]

really want to be included in the opportunity to solve our problems, 
and this is a huge problem.
  Just a couple of days ago, there was a summit held at the White House 
on health care, and they had Members of Congress, they had experts in 
the health field come together to look at how we are going to solve 
this problem.
  The economy right now is the hugest problem that we have. Why aren't 
we working together and really coming together to solve this problem? 
We have so much expertise in this Congress. We have economists, we have 
people in the industry. We really should be sitting down to solve the 
problem, rather than going back and forth and arguing on the House 
floor, because our country and the international economy is suffering. 
And it is not the first time nor the last. We have seen crisis like 
this before and we have pulled through. So I am optimistic that we can 
get together and really work to solve the problem.
  And look what happened on 9/11. We came together. We came together as 
a Congress, united to face that problem and to face that challenge, and 
to find the solutions and how we were going to deal with it. This is 
another problem. Not maybe as quite the magnitude; maybe it is, but we 
need to get together and really work together.
  We face the largest economic decline since World War II, along with 
unprecedented domestic unemployment. February's numbers show that there 
was 8.1 percent unemployment. And we face unprecedented foreclosures, 
facing about one in nine families right now. It is time for us to unite 
again as leaders and pull through once more.
  I wish that the administration would convene this bipartisan, 
bicameral summit to focus all of our energy on solving economic 
problems. We want to solve health care, we want to solve energy, we 
want to solve climate change. We want to do all of these things. We 
want to solve education. But I think all of that energy really needs to 
be brought to one force to come back and address the economic 
situation. We should be focusing on saving and spending plans that put 
America on a path to responsibility and long-term success.
  With TARP money of $700 billion, a housing bill that was $300 
billion, with the recent passage of the $825 stimulus package, and with 
the Federal Reserve putting so much money into some areas, and a 
pending $410 billion appropriation bill, I have to say that my 
constituents are upset. They are upset because the spending appears to 
be recklessly out of control, with no accountability or direction. And, 
unfortunately, with the recent release of the administration's budget 
for fiscal year 2010, we continue down this heavy spending path. And 
while we only know the basics of the budget proposal, it certainly has 
been a mixed bag.
  So tonight we are here, and we want to address the concerns in the 
budget. There are the good, the bad, and what we call the ugly. I have 
a little chart here that addresses the President's 2010 budget. As I 
said, we have got the good, the bad, and the ugly.
  We acknowledge that there is an entitlement crisis, that there is a 
budget fix for the AMT. We are looking at the Medicaid part D. With the 
bad, there is an increase in spending of $3.9 trillion in 2009. It 
increases nondefense appropriations by 9.3 percent. The war funding is 
a gimmick. The ugly, a $1.4 trillion tax increase in a recession, $1 
trillion entitlement expansion, in the 2009 deficit, $1.8 trillion. And 
we double the debt.
  These are the things that we are going to be discussing tonight, and 
I am glad to have my colleagues here to participate. I would like to 
call on the gentlelady from Tennessee for her comments right now, 
Marsha Blackburn.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentlelady from Illinois so much for 
yielding, and I appreciate her yielding the time to me. And we have 
other members of our Republican conference who are here, female 
members, who are coming to talk about the issues that we know are 
affecting our constituents and we know are affecting women in our 
districts.
  As the gentlelady from Illinois has mentioned, the number one thing 
that we do hear from our constituents, and especially our women small 
business owners, is their concerns over the economy; and they are 
concerned about the economic security, the retirement security that is 
in front of them as they look to winding down their careers. And they 
are also very concerned about what is happening for the secured 
opportunities of future generations and the security that they will 
want to enjoy.
  I have a chart with me that I think says a lot about what we see 
happening here in Washington now as well as what is going to be coming 
in years to come.
  Let's go back and look at the deficit. We are hearing a lot about the 
deficit and the data. Some of my constituents last week were saying, 
well, we continue to hear this comment that they inherited this debt. 
How could that be? Everyone has been voting on this for years.
  So we made a chart looking at Federal spending going back to January 
2007 through today. And, of course, in 2007 is when all of the problems 
really started to manifest themselves in the housing industry and 
leading toward the situations that we saw happening with the banks that 
began in early 2008, and then moving on into the budget situation that 
we have today. So we prepared a chart to lay out what has happened 
since January 2007, with our Federal deficit, which is the line that 
you will see in green, the graphing in green.
  Then, discretionary spending, which is that portion of our budget 
that we actually can get into and make some decisions about how we are 
going to spend those dollars, and that is where we should be reducing 
what the Federal government spends.
  Then, mandatory spending. Much of that is the entitlements which the 
gentlelady from Illinois just referred to mentioning very appropriately 
that, yes, indeed, we do have an entitlement crisis that is coming, and 
that is spending that is going to have to be dealt with in order for 
the future generations to enjoy security, whether it is economic 
security, whether it is freedom and opportunity.

                              {time}  2030

  Take a look at what has happened. You can see where we were in 
January 2007. And the debt, the Federal debt, at that point in time was 
right over $8 trillion. Our deficit in 2007 was just over $400 billion.
  Now let's look at what happened. The first stimulus plan that was 
passed early last year, $152 billion, you can see what that did to the 
federal deficit. It really popped it up. You can also see what that did 
to discretionary spending. And then look at what happened with pre-
TARP, the amount of money, the $300 billion, that went into those loans 
from March to September of 2008 when we were dealing with Bear Stearns, 
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, IndyMac and AIG. You can see what happened 
with our deficit, which is the green line, the discretionary spending, 
and the bump-ups that came there, and then you see the mandatory 
spending rising as we move through that. Then TARP in September 2008, 
you can see what happened there with the $700 billion and the 
escalation that has carried forth there, the auto bailout of $14 
billion.
  President Obama's second stimulus, we call this plan B, and that 
ended up being $1 trillion. You see what it did to our deficit. We are 
at over $2 trillion in deficit for this fiscal year so far. Also you 
can see what happened with our discretionary spending. And take a look 
at what has happened with our mandatory spending through there. And 
then of course the omnibus, the $410 billion omnibus bill that had 
passed the House and it is still in the Senate without a resolution to 
it.
  So through all of these votes, I will highlight that the Speaker, our 
President who was in the Senate, and Leader Reid in the Senate, all 
were ``yes'' votes on that. They were part of driving this deficit and 
these discretionary spending hikes, the mandatory spending spikes that 
you are seeing over there also.
  And by the way, going back to January 2007, that is when the 
Democrats

[[Page 6681]]

took control of both Houses, both Chambers, the House and the Senate, 
and started pushing forward the spending increases. And they have now 
moved the national debt from just over the $8 trillion that was here to 
nearly $11 trillion. As of January 3 of this year, the debt was at 
$10.7 trillion. And as I mentioned earlier, that big green spike over 
there is for the $2 trillion in deficit spending they have already 
accrued this year. And we are hearing that once they pass the $410 
billion, that it is going to be even higher. And we are also hearing 
that they are going to come back and ask for more TARP spending.
  So when I talk with females and with female-owned small businesses in 
my district, the number one thing that comes up is the economy. And 
what does this do? Knowing that political freedom and economic freedom 
are linked, what does this do to future generations? From the women in 
my district, I have heard repeatedly, they understand that we cannot 
spend our way out of this recession. You can't spend your way to 
recovery. You can't spend your way to prosperity. You can't build 
prosperity on a foundation of debt. And so many of our small business 
owners understand that. And women every single day come to me and say, 
Marsha, it is time for people to address these economic issues and do 
it with wisdom, do it with some forethought, and be very careful that 
we are not passing on to future generations a debt that they are unable 
to handle.
  I was out visiting with some women's groups a couple of weeks ago. A 
lady came up to me. She was carrying a young infant. And I noticed this 
because I have a 9-month-old grandson, Jack, and I have another 
grandchild, Chase, who will arrive in June. And the lady walked up to 
me with this child in her arms. And she said, ``Marsha, I want to tell 
you something.'' She said, ``it absolutely infuriates me when Congress 
spends money I haven't made yet. But now I have got this 6-month old 
grandbaby. And let me tell you something. It makes me so angry. I want 
to come to Washington and bang on the doors because it makes me so 
angry that you're spending money that she has not made yet. And she 
doesn't even know to be upset with Congress.'' She said, ``I know 
you're voting `no' on all these spending bills. Please do all you can 
to arrest the out-of-control spending.''
  And I will yield back to the gentlelady from Illinois. I thank you 
for the time. And I thank you for the efforts to help work to preserve 
our economic freedom for future generations.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee. You have done so 
much in bringing out all of this to our attention. And I really 
appreciate it.
  I would like to just read a paragraph from one of my constituents, a 
woman in the district named April. And she said, ``First, thank you for 
voting against the stimulus package at the beginning of February. As an 
independent, I am disturbed by what has happened in Washington these 
past few weeks. I am urging you and Members of Congress to exercise 
restraint when examining the President's budget and any other stimulus 
packages. Eliminate wasteful spending. The American people are mindful 
these days of their own budgets at home, and so should the Federal 
Government.
  ``In addition, what happened to the President's and other Members' 
promise that they would eliminate earmarks? It seems like Washington 
needs some management. Thank you for your time.''
  And with that, I would like to call on my good friend from Florida, 
Ginny Brown-Waite.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentlelady from 
Illinois.
  Last week I had some folks in town from Florida, and they didn't get 
to see snow very often obviously living in Florida. And when they came 
here, it was about some of the tax issues. And they were darn mad, the 
same way that Mrs. Blackburn's constituents were. And when they came 
into my office, I said to them, ``so what do you think about the 
snow?'' They said, ``do you mean the snow job of the stimulus package 
and then the budget that the President came out with?''
  These are small business owners who are very concerned about their 
ability to stay in business. We all know that the majority, about 80 
percent of jobs created recently over the last 8 and 10 years, have 
been from small businesses. And they realize that they are the ones who 
are going to be hit very hard by President Obama's proposed tax 
increases.
  This chart clearly shows the 2010 tax increases that are proposed by 
President Obama. It shows cap-and-trade, which most business people 
call ``cap-and-tax,'' at $646 billion increase, small businesses and 
investors, the red color, $635 billion tax increase, and other tax 
increases, about $149 billion. Now, where are those tax increases going 
to come from? Obviously by taxing the small business person. We have 
heard about how the higher tax won't affect anyone earning less than 
$250,000. The truth of the matter is that it is actually at the 
$200,000 level, that is the level at which the Obama tax increases 
begin to take effect for small business owners filing as singles.
  My husband and I owned a few businesses. And we were always what is 
called a Subchapter S corporation. And a Subchapter S corporation, or a 
partnership, or a limited liability, LLC, at the end of the year, they 
take the profits, and they add it to their income, and they pay income 
tax based on that. Well when you combine a hoped-for profit as a 
Subchapter S corporation or a partnership and you add it to whatever 
income you may have drawn from the business or your spouse may have 
brought from another job, you're at the $250,000 level, very, very 
quickly. But if you're a single taxpayer, it is $200,000. We don't hear 
a lot about that. We only hear about $250,000, which to the average 
person sounds kind of like a lot of money. But we must remember that 
over 3 million taxpayers with small business income actually earn more 
than $250,000. That is the level at which these tax increases are going 
to take effect. These, again, are the people back in our districts. 
These are the Barbara Manzis in my district. She has a metal 
fabrication business. And you cannot continue to tax these job-creating 
small businesses out of existence.
  A constituent sent me a cartoon. It happens to be the Wizard of Id. 
And it is someone running for office. And in this, it says, ``what are 
you offering the peasants in your election speech today?'' And the 
politician goes on to say, ``nothing they can afford to refuse. Elect 
me and I promise free health care, free housing, free clothing, food 
stamps and jobs for everybody.'' And then he asks the crowd, ``are 
there any questions?'' And someone yells out from the crowd, ``who 
needs a job?''
  Well, that is exactly where we are going in this country with some of 
the tax policies. If everything out there is ``for free,'' and you have 
the President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying 
that we need to have some people in this country just paying a little 
bit more, I'm sure that my colleagues forget that many of the taxpayers 
in these top two income tax brackets earn significant portions of that 
income from being a major employer. So we are going to really end up 
taxing those who create the jobs.
  I did a telephone town hall last week in my district. And when you do 
a telephone town hall, you don't select just people in your own party. 
In my case I do it by county, county by county. And we call individuals 
and we try to ask them their opinion. Overwhelmingly, whether it was a 
Republican or a Democrat or an independent, the President's budget was 
not popular, nor was the stimulus package. The concern was that it 
really did not help small businesses. And in my district, I don't have 
major employers. The majority of the employers in my district are 
either health care, remember this is Florida, are either health care, 
government, or small businesses. So we are going to limit it to the 
previous two, because under the Obama Democrat tax plan, we are going 
to be putting a lot of these small businesses out of business at a time 
when they are struggling to stay alive in this economy.
  The folks back home quite honestly don't understand how this 
phenomena

[[Page 6682]]

can be, how people think that they can tax their way out of this 
declining economy. Because all increased taxes are going to do is make 
sure that the declining economy continues. And that is pretty darn sad.
  We also on this chart had some figures for cap-and-trade. What cap-
and- trade is going to do, most people call it cap-and-tax, is it is 
going to raise taxes on small businesses. It is going to raise energy 
costs on small businesses and certainly on residents at a time when 
people are already struggling. I go home every weekend to the Fifth 
Congressional District. And people up there say things like, ``are you 
the only sane one there who is voting against this?'' I assure them 
that my colleagues, like the gentlelady from Illinois, the gentlelady 
from Tennessee and many other Members are concerned and are also voting 
against it. What we are going after here is trying to bring some common 
sense and help for small businesses.
  Unfortunately, President Obama's wealth distribution plan would not 
even cover the increased energy costs associated with his cap-and-tax, 
or cap-and-trade, plan. It is really cap-and-tax plan. It is a tax 
plan, ladies and gentlemen.
  Americans fear that we are going down the road to socialism. And I 
recall Margaret Thatcher's comment about socialism, and that is, the 
problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's 
money. Unfortunately, with the budget that the President has proposed, 
the TARP spending, deficit spending, the proposed budget and the 
stimulus package, I believe, and I know that the gentlelady from 
Illinois believes, that we are headed down to a path of possible 
socialism.
  That, my colleagues, is not acceptable. And that is not what our 
American economy needs at this time.
  With that, I will yield back to the gentlelady from Illinois.

                              {time}  2045

  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentlelady for bringing up the tax issue. I 
am reminded of the words of Ben Franklin: ``In this world, nothing is 
certain but death and taxes.''
  We certainly have to think that the President's recent budget 
proposals essentially, and unfortunately for American families and 
small businesses, can bring a certainty to the latter, and that is 
taxes, and increased taxes to be specific. I appreciate you bringing 
that up.
  I have another letter from one of my constituents, Rich. He says, 
``The current budget proposal is a path to nowhere, in my opinion. It 
will lead to a tax increase for all Americans. There should not be a 
carbon tax on businesses. All that will do is raise prices and cut 
jobs. Instead, put an incentive for businesses to lower energy. Also, 
why increase capital gains taxes at this time, or at any time. All that 
does is force businesses to go elsewhere. We need to keep the taxes 
where they are or lower for businesses. We need to encourage companies 
and people to invest in the U.S. The net effect is more profit which 
leads to more tax revenue for the country. Just taxing the rich doesn't 
work.'' And I thank Rich for that letter.
  Let me talk about a couple of other taxes because I think the 
important financial task before Congress right now is fostering 
economic growth. Number one is keeping taxes on families down; and 
number two is helping American business stay competitive; and three, 
eliminate wasteful spending in Washington.
  In one of my former lives I was a probate lawyer and estate lawyer. I 
frequently witnessed the devastating effect that the estate tax or 
death tax had on family-owned farms and businesses. I think that we did 
put a limit on that. We changed it. Since 2001, Congress passed a 10-
year tax cut package that included a provision that would slowly phase 
out the death tax and eliminate it all together in 2010.
  However, the administration budget proposes that we continue to tax, 
to use the estate tax at 2009 levels instead of what we should be doing 
and permanently zeroing out this onerous tax, this double tax. So 
instead of 2010 when it would have been eliminated permanently, if this 
passes, and you have to remember the President proposes and the 
Congress disposes. But if it were to happen, we would continue with a 
tax that taxes about 3.5 million at a 45 percent rate. That's a little 
lower than it has been in the past sometimes. The only good thing about 
it is it does bring back the step up. During these uncertain times and 
turbulent times, I don't think that it is time to place another tax 
burden on families and small businesses. It is certainly time to cut 
taxes and encourage businesses and families so they will be able to 
create jobs.
  One other tax that really concerns me is the budget proposes to limit 
deductions for charitable contributions, and we know how much 
contributions have meant for this country from the time of early on in 
the country with all of the things that so many of these famous 
families did, like the Rockefellers or the Carnegies. Each year many 
people give contributions to charities and nonprofits. Why should we 
discourage this in any way, especially right now. So many people 
benefit from so many charities like, Catholic Charities or the Jewish 
Federation and all of the small charities. So I strongly believe in 
charitable giving and have supported many bills to encourage it instead 
of asking the Federal Government to do it, and that is like bringing 
back much more big government. So I will continue to support tax 
policies that encourage charitable giving.
  Regarding homeownership, here we have been dealing with families and 
foreclosure rates and what is happening. And now the budget proposal is 
to limit the mortgage interest deduction. This is a direct hit to 
family budgets and discourages homeownership at a time when we need to 
encourage homeownership. It is limited. Again, it is to the higher rate 
taxpayer. But this again is going to trickle-down with what it does 
with homeownership. We need to make homeownership more affordable. 
Homeowners may currently deduct the interest paid on mortgages from 
their interest tax liability. So millions of homeowners enjoy the 
benefits of this deduction which does encourage homeownership through 
an annual tax savings. Although general support for this tax remains 
strong, I think it is irresponsible to slash this benefit. I support 
tax policies and now will yield to another one of my colleagues, the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) who is here to address some 
of the women's issues and how we approach the budget that we are 
looking at.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you so much for yielding. I thank the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). She has served long and hard 
on the Financial Services Committee, and I know that she shares my 
opinion that these are historic times and we have never seen anything 
quite like this in the financial services sector before.
  Beginning in the housing industry, we watched the market just 
collapse and we saw the economy flat line and go down into the negative 
column, and women all over the United States started feeling very 
insecure. I think as mothers and women, that is very important to each 
one of us. It is a sense of security, not only for our own well-being 
but for the well-being of our children.
  I know that we look at our mothers. I look at my own mother, Jean, 
who lives in Anoka, Minnesota. She is going to be 78 years young in 
just a few months, and she is very concerned as she looks at the value 
of her 401(k). She, like many Americans, has opened up her statement 
and seen that her 401(k) has dropped by 50 percent. My mother is a 
wonderful woman. She does samples. When you go to the grocery store and 
see those sample ladies, my mother is a samples lady. She has worked 
all of her life, but she wants to do this because she loves people and 
she wants to be with people.
  But at 78 years of age, she may not always be able to work. And she 
looks at what she has worked so hard to save for. She never had a high-
paying job, but my mother was extremely frugal and extremely prudent, 
and taught me

[[Page 6683]]

to be the same way. There are women on fixed incomes all across the 
country who did the same thing. They took care of their children, 
raised them, scrimped and saved and clipped coupons, and now here they 
are, looking at their savings and seeing the value of their savings 
diminish before their eyes. They are very concerned, and they wonder 
what in the world has gotten into Congress. What in the world has 
gotten into this new Presidential administration. They really had high 
hopes for this administration, and they are looking and saying as a 
senior citizen, my options are limited. Maybe my husband has already 
passed away or my husband is infirm. What am I going to do; I can't go 
out and get a job. They look at this administration, and in the name of 
economic stimulus, they saw that this current liberal administration 
has legislation that is overflowing with wasteful government spending.
  And they might have heard about one of these wasteful projects. It is 
a brand new, billion-dollar high speed train that is going to go from 
Disneyland up to Las Vegas. A billion dollars of a widow's money to go 
to pay for a brand new ride essentially from Disneyland to Las Vegas. 
Harry Reid, the Senator from Nevada, was behind this measure, and it 
makes us wonder, is he more interested in making sure kids start 
gambling at younger ages?
  We also see the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, she was behind 
passing our nearly 1,100-page stimulus bill, brought it to the floor, 
and not one Member of Congress was able to read that bill before we 
were asked to vote on it. I don't know if any other Congress was asked 
to pass a bigger spending bill than this bill with less time to read 
it, digest it, and even know what was in it. That is not something I 
want to go home and tell my elderly mother or tell people back in the 
State of Minnesota, that is Congress is here spending more money than 
we have ever heard of before, money we don't have, and we are spending 
that money without even having a chance to read the bills.
  I kept my staff here until 9 at night before we were supposed to vote 
on the stimulus bill. I released them to go home. They had worked all 
day long. I kept them here until 9, hoping that the Democrats would 
release the bill so we would at least have a chance to read it. They 
went home. It wasn't until after midnight that the Democrats finally 
put the bill online. There was absolutely no way to read the bill. 
That's shameful. The American people deserve better than that.
  And then we see that the President is now telling 92 percent of the 
American people who are currently paying their mortgages on time that 
it isn't enough that they pay their own mortgages, now they have to pay 
the mortgages of the people next door who maybe took out a home equity 
loan or bought more home than they can afford and got out on a limb, 
now 92 percent of the American people are seeing their 401(k)s 
disappear before their eyes, or seeing jobs disappear in their city and 
community. And they are being told that now it is their responsibility 
to pay the mortgage of 8 percent of the American people.
  And now we have our second spending bill that has come before us, the 
largest budget that we have had for discretionary spending, $410 
billion. It is an 8 percent increase from the last budget.
  I hear the Obama administration telling the average American it is 
time for you to sacrifice. One thing I don't see is that the Federal 
Government is having to sacrifice. They are not sacrificing. They are 
increasing their spending by a whooping 8 percent on the Federal 
budget, and this is what we have to see for it. We are looking at a 
doubling of the national debt. Here we are at $5 trillion, which 
worried me back in 2000. And now projected going forward 2019, we are 
looking at a deficit north of $20 trillion. We have never seen anything 
like that.
  In the previous hour we saw the Democrats up here speaking. And one 
of the charts that they had up talked about how very quickly now we are 
going to see Social Security spending going from having money in the 
bank for coming in for Social Security. Very soon we are going to go 
underwater and we are going to have less money coming in for Social 
Security than what is going out. We will be looking at having about a 
trillion dollars in obligations that we currently don't have money to 
obligate to pay for those bills. This is concerning. These are elderly, 
senior citizen females that are again worried about their own security. 
No wonder the stock market has dropped more than a thousand points 
since President Obama took office. No wonder more Americans are blazing 
mad right now, and they are saying we are not going to take it any 
more. So you see all across the country tea parties breaking out, 
people saying I can't pay these taxes any more.
  Every promise that was made to the American people during the last 
campaign by the current Obama administration on fiscal accountability 
has already been broken. And we only have 45 days in this 
administration. Every fiscal accountability promise has been broken, 
and it is a travesty.

                              {time}  2100

  I called a friend of mine who is a tax accountant today; she's 
working really hard because all of the tax returns are going to be due 
now April 15. I called her to see how she's doing. And I said, tell me, 
what is some of the information that you're seeing; what can I tell the 
American people? And she told me about a tax return that she's doing. 
And I will close with this.
  I talked about elderly ladies and their concern about security. Let 
me tell you about a younger female American, she's just 8 years old; 
lovely girl, tragic story. She was born in the year 2000, and she had a 
wonderful family. Her father was a great patriot who wanted to serve 
his country. He went to Iraq. When she was 4 years old, her father was 
killed serving his country in Iraq. And now this little girl is 
receiving money from Social Security disability payments, and she's 
also receiving money from the United States Defense and Accounting 
Service which the U.S. Military annuity pays. These are the right 
payments that she should be getting because of the service that her 
father gave to her country. But with this money that's coming into this 
little girl, this little 8-year-old girl is paying Federal taxes on the 
amount of money that she is receiving as an orphan. She's not only 
paying Federal taxes, she is also paying what's called alternative 
minimum taxes. That's how out of kilter and how drastically this 
government is spending your money in an out-of-control fashion, that 
not only is this government now going to widows for more money and 
increased taxes, we're even reaching into the pockets of orphans to tax 
them with alternative minimum tax, a tax that was meant for rich people 
so that rich people would not escape paying taxes. Now orphans are 
being subject, at very low levels, for alternative minimum tax.
  I would repeat what we saw a reporter say on CNBC: ``Mr. President, 
are you listening to the American people?'' We cannot afford a doubling 
of our national debt. We cannot afford to impoverish America's widows. 
And we certainly can't afford to be taking money out of the pockets of 
orphans whose fathers were killed serving this country in the Iraq war. 
This must end. And the Obama administration must stop taxing the 
American people.
  And with that, I would yield back to the gentlelady from the State of 
Illinois, Mrs. Biggert.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
  I know that this is what we're hearing from I think all of our 
constituents about having their life savings, their retirement accounts 
decline. I've got a letter here from another one of my constituents 
saying, ``My life savings, including retirement accounts, have declined 
to the point where I am unsure I will ever be able to retire or make 
another major purchase of any kind. How many more negative Wall Street 
stock market losses will it take before the new administration realizes 
that their reckless spending without a true plan to correct the economy 
will destroy all of us to a point that retirees and us close to 
retirement may

[[Page 6684]]

never recover from their continuous blunders?'' So I thank the 
gentlelady for bringing that to our attention. I appreciate it.
  And now I would like to ask the gentlelady from--Wyoming. I'm sorry I 
messed up on a new Member's State, but the gentlelady from Wyoming, 
Cynthia Lummis. I'm happy that you're here.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentlelady from Illinois for this fine 
session this evening.
  The American people know, and particularly women in this country 
know, that you cannot tax and spend your way into economic prosperity; 
and furthermore, you cannot tax during a recession. Yet, that is what 
is being proposed, and those taxes will fall on you.
  One of the ways in which those taxes will fall on you during this 
recession is through something called cap and trade. Cap and trade is a 
tax, so I'm going to go over and change this and add the word ``tax.'' 
And I want to talk specifically about how it's going to affect family 
budgets.
  Cap and trade is a tax that will be used to change the way that you 
use power--meaning electricity, oil, gas--and anything that comes from 
carbon--meaning oil, gas, or coal, specifically. And those sources of 
energy represent 50 percent of the electricity in this country, which 
comes from coal, and also a significant amount, of course, of our 
gasoline coming from oil, and natural gas, which is used to heat our 
homes. These all emit carbon. And in order to change the American 
behavior and the way that we use these carbon-emitting substances, the 
Obama administration proposes to tax them. It will be called a cap and 
trade system, which is a market-based system, but it's cleverly 
disguised as a market-based system because, in reality, it is a tax, a 
carbon tax, and it will be paid by the American consumer. So if you use 
electricity, if you heat or cool your home, if you drive an automobile, 
if you use public transportation, you will be paying this tax. And 
here's how it will accrue to you if you are an average household.
  Gasoline is in blue on this chart, natural gas in red, electricity in 
green. And as you can see, the cost of these for an average household 
without the cap and trade tax is on the left, and the cost with cap and 
trade is on my right--the left of someone who would be viewing this 
chart. So you will see it will have a 9 percent increase for 
electricity in the average home, 14 percent increase for natural gas, 
and a 16 percent increase for gasoline in the average home.
  Now, I can tell you, in my home State of Wyoming it will be much 
higher than that because in the winter it costs more for us to heat our 
homes. In the summer, admittedly, it costs less for us to cool our 
homes. But we consume more gasoline per family than any other State in 
the Union and that is because there is no public transportation in 
Wyoming. The distances are too far. We are the ninth largest State by 
land mass, and we have the smallest population in the Nation. 
Consequently, we can't go anywhere on public transportation; it is all 
automobile-based. That's why we consume more gasoline than other 
States, and that's why the effects of this tax will fall very heavily 
on people who live in rural areas, and also in areas with extreme 
climate changes or extreme temperature changes, places that must heat 
their homes in the winter and cool their homes in the summer.
  So if you fall into any of those categories, you're going to see much 
higher expenses because all of the cap and trade taxes are going to be 
passed on to you. They are not going to be absorbed by the companies 
that are producing oil, gas and coal. However, there is going to be 
another impact on those businesses, and that is job loss, job loss at a 
time when this country is in recession, at a time when job losses are 
already driving us more deeply into recession. And that job loss looks 
like this: 2011, over 200,000 jobs lost; and each year thereafter, 
climbing to the year 2015, to about 1.5 million jobs lost due to this 
cap and trade tax. And once again, I'm going to write the word ``tax'' 
on this chart.
  What's worse, this is being foisted on the American people in the 
name of climate change, in the name of global warming. And those who 
believe that global warming is man-made--and there are many, I would 
say a preponderance of people believe that climate change is man-made--
believe that if Americans change their ways and consume less carbon-
emitting substances, that they will be able to change climate. I 
learned last week in a Natural Resources Committee from an 
international expert on energy and climate that that is not the case, 
that America could cease all economic activity, that Japan could cease 
all economic activity, and that Europe could cease all economic 
activity, we could turn off our lights, we could quit using our cars, 
we could stay home, we wouldn't work, the factories would shut down, in 
all three of those large economies and it is not going to have one iota 
of influence on the amount of carbon in the atmosphere unless China, 
Russia and India change their climate policies.
  China desperately wants each person in their economy to have a light 
bulb in their home. That is their goal, a light bulb in every home. And 
in order to put a light bulb in every home in China they are building 
one new coal-fired plant a week, and they will have to continue to do 
so for a very long period of time. No one can blame China for wanting a 
higher standard of living for every person in their country, and no one 
can fault them for wanting them to do it with resources they have--like 
coal, oil and gas--and for wanting to do it with the cheapest source, 
hydroelectric and coal. Consequently, the costs that will be borne by 
the American consumer are going to have not one single effect on carbon 
emissions in this atmosphere. That's where rational thinking goes out 
of the way and the American consumer foots the bill.
  I want to close--and I thank the gentlelady from Illinois--I want to 
close with this thought: You can't tax and spend your way out of a 
recession. And taxes during a recession is the absolute worst 
consequence on a family in America in the 21st century with these 
problems.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentlelady from Wyoming. Thank you for your 
expertise on this issue. I think that you've really been able to bring 
new thoughts on this and really put it very succinctly in what's 
happening in this. And next we have to deal with nuclear energy, too, 
and really continue to build that up. So I thank you for doing that.
  And next we have the gentlelady from North Carolina, who you see on 
the floor a lot. She provides us with so much knowledge, the gentlelady 
from North Carolina, Virginia Foxx.
  Ms. FOXX. Well, I want to thank my colleague, Mrs. Biggert, from 
Illinois for organizing this Special Order tonight and bringing 
together a group of--those who have already spoken--exceptional women 
who have shared their expertise with us tonight.
  I have a quote that I want to use, it's from Pericles, from 430 BC. 
Pericles said, ``Just because you do not take an interest in politics 
doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you.'' And I think what 
all of us have been trying to communicate tonight is that there's a lot 
happening that needs to be shared with the American people. And many 
people, particularly women, every day are going to work, doing their 
jobs, coming home, taking care of their families--be it their nuclear 
family or their extended family--and many don't have time to get 
involved a lot in the political life. March is Women's History Month, 
and I think it's important that we talk about the role of women in our 
culture and how what's happening here is going to have an impact on 
them.
  We don't have a lot of time left tonight, but I do want to say that I 
share with my colleagues the concerns that they've expressed in terms 
of how raising taxes during a recession is the wrong thing to do, how 
raising taxes on energy is the wrong thing to do, how raising taxes on 
small businesses--the engines of job creation--is the wrong thing to 
do, how raising taxes on investments instead of encouraging economic 
growth is the wrong thing to do,

[[Page 6685]]

limiting tax incentives for charitable giving is the wrong thing to do. 
And I could go on and on about what's wrong with the budget that 
President Obama has submitted, and which it looks very likely that this 
Democratic Congress is going to endorse.

                              {time}  2115

  What we need to be doing in our culture and in our country is to be 
promoting job growth, promoting economic recovery, and yet everything 
that's being done seems to be wanting to drive down the economy and 
harm the economy and the American people. It is a very difficult thing 
to deal with when you see that happening and you know that's the impact 
of what's happening, whether it is designed to be that way or not.
  Today someone gave me an excellent article from National Journal of 
March 7 by Clive Crook, the title of which is ``The End of the American 
Exception?'' And he goes through this and talks about how it appears as 
though the present administration is trying to take us to the place 
that Europe is right now and compares us to France. I will submit this 
article in its entirety tonight.
  Again, I applaud my colleagues for the work that they have done 
tonight. I think we have just scratched the surface in what we need to 
be presenting to the American public, especially American women.
  Right now 59.3 percent of our labor force is made up of American 
women over the age of 16. There are 71 million of them working. They 
are 46 percent of the total labor force and projected to account for 47 
percent of the labor force in 2016. They are also projected to account 
for 49 percent of the increase in the total workforce. They're doing a 
tremendous job for us in this country, but they're going to be hit by 
this. And many of them are not participating in politics. They're not 
able to because of the demands of their jobs and their families. But I 
think it's important that we point these items out to them, and I hope 
we will be doing another Special Order this month so we can do more by 
way of educating people about the effects of this budget on the average 
American family.
  And with that, I yield back to my colleague from Illinois, who has 
done such a great job tonight.

               [From the National Journal, March 7, 2009]

                   The End of the American Exception?

                            (By Clive Crook)

       During PBS's NewsHour With Jim Lehrer last Friday, the 
     program's resident pundits, David Brooks and Mark Shields, 
     had an interesting exchange about President Obama's first 
     budget. They agreed that the administration aimed to be 
     ``transformative''--and Brooks conceded, ``I think we all 
     want that.'' The real question, he said, is how 
     transformative.
       Brooks: ``The debate will be over the nature of it: If it's 
     a transformative relationship that basically keeps the 
     American model with repair, you'll get a lot of people in the 
     center for it. If it's a transformative relationship that 
     turns us into France, with a consumption tax and a much 
     bigger federal government, you will not.''
       Shields: ``That's a straw man, turning it into France. 
     That's not the case.''
       Is it really a straw man? I was hoping that Brooks would 
     press Shields to say what exactly it is about France he 
     objects to, what makes him recoil at the parallel. Where has 
     France gone too far, in the view of an American liberal?
       Presumably, liberals approve of the universal health care, 
     the generous and extensive welfare state, the comprehensive 
     worker protections, the stricter regulation, the vastly more-
     generous subsidies for higher education, the stronger unions, 
     the higher taxes, and especially the higher taxes on the 
     rich. At least I assume they do, since they advocate all of 
     those policies for the United States. Have I left something 
     out?
       As far as social and economic policies are concerned, 
     Democrats really ought to be holding up France (or maybe 
     Italy or Germany) as the model to which they aspire. The fact 
     that they do not--that they even deny the validity of the 
     comparison--seems revealing. No doubt it is partly a matter 
     of tactical calculation. The idea that the United States 
     should model itself on any other country, rather than offer 
     itself as the model for the world, would be new to most 
     American voters and would take some getting used to. But I do 
     not think it is just that.
       Perhaps some liberals privately long to make the United 
     States over in the image of France, but the great majority, I 
     imagine, are more interested in taking the things they regard 
     as best in the European economic model--all the things I just 
     listed--and combining those ``socially enlightened'' policies 
     with the traditional economic virtues of the United States. 
     Take French social policies and welfare-state institutions 
     and add them to the American work ethic, spirit of self-
     reliance, and appetite for change. Et voila, the best of both 
     worlds.
       Color me skeptical. Culture shapes institutions and vice 
     versa. Culture--that bundle of traits of self-reliance, self-
     determination, innovation, and striving for success--
     underpins the American exception. To state the obvious, it 
     helps explain why this country has a markedly different form 
     of capitalism than Europe, based on smaller government and 
     lower taxes.
       In ordinary times, this culture makes it hard for a 
     government to push the United States in a European direction: 
     Voters push back against bigger government and higher taxes. 
     But now, maybe, the time is ripe. This unusually severe 
     economic crisis has called American capitalism into question, 
     highlighting its weaknesses and making it easier to forget 
     its strengths. Liberalism has a rare opportunity. And just as 
     this opportunity has arisen, American liberals also have, in 
     Barack Obama, a remarkably popular and appealing leader to 
     press the advantage.
       But the interaction between culture and institutions works 
     both ways. Change the system and, with time, you will change 
     the culture. How much you will change it is debatable, and so 
     is whether change of that kind would be good, bad, or 
     indifferent for the country's economic and political 
     prospects. But it would be an error to assume that the policy 
     transformation that some liberals long for--and which Obama, 
     if his budget is any guide, appears to be aiming for--would 
     leave America's unusual cultural traits unaffected.
       I had better declare an interest on this question of good, 
     bad, or indifferent. As you may recall, I am a Brit who lives 
     in the U.S. Politically speaking, I think of myself as an 
     old-fashioned English liberal, a comically outmoded 
     orientation that has little or no voice in modern European or 
     American politics. In U.S. terms, you get a sense of where I 
     stand if you think ``liberal on social issues, conservative 
     on economic issues'' (but with exceptions; so do not hold me 
     to that).
       To put it mildly, I admire this country's instinctive 
     suspicion of concentrated state power; its anti-collectivism, 
     its veneration of the individual spirit and individual 
     enterprise. At different times and in different ways, 
     Democrats and Republicans alike have been at war with aspects 
     of that mind-set, but as an admiring foreigner; I am here to 
     tell you that this culture survives, that the American 
     exception is alive and well, and that it is more than likely 
     the secret of this country's awesome success.
       If I were a citizen with a vote--as one day, immigration 
     authorities permitting, I hope to be--I would need to think 
     long and hard before casting it for ``transformation.'' 
     Repairs here and improvements there, of course, but 
     transformation? It would be a shame to see America revert to 
     the Western European norm. It would mean I bad wasted a trip, 
     for one thing, and I am not sure where I would go next.
       Brooks's invoking France as a possible destination for 
     Obama's social experiment does seem far-fetched. But the 
     staggering breadth of Obama's ambition makes it reasonable to 
     ask where all this is heading. Thoroughgoing health care 
     reform would have been a bold undertaking by itself, one for 
     which there is broad centrist support. But the budget and the 
     fiscal stimulus also call for wide and ongoing commitments to 
     public investment.
       Obama is fond of saying that the question is not big 
     government or small government, but what works. The fact is, 
     whether his programs work or not, taken together they 
     represent the biggest and fastest expansion of government 
     since the New Deal. Moreover; the tax increases to pay for 
     this expansion, he says, are to fall entirely on high-earning 
     households. So his plan to enlarge government is married to 
     an uncompromising assault on economic inequality.
       And if all of this is not enough to remind you of Europe, 
     Obama has also expressed strong support for the Employee Free 
     Choice Act, arguing that bigger and stronger unions are a 
     vital part of sharing prosperity more widely. To somebody who 
     watched unions cripple the British economy, until voters 
     elected Margaret Thatcher to sweep them away, this is the 
     part of Obama's program that seems most in need of an 
     international reality check.
       This promised transformation is not a move into unexplored 
     territory, after all. The policies that Obama is proposing 
     have all been tried elsewhere. Ideas that look bold and new 
     in this country are old hat across the Atlantic. And we know 
     something about how well they work.
       A strong case can be made for many of Obama's proposals, 
     taken one at a time. I admire his ambition to mend the 
     country's failing, unjust, and needlessly expensive health 
     care system. I also applaud his focus on raising the incomes 
     of the working poor, through tax cuts and wage subsidies 
     (such as his ``make work pay'' tax credits). But tradeoffs 
     need to be faced. A good hard look at Europe makes this 
     plain.

[[Page 6686]]

       Bigger government requires higher taxes--in the end, for 
     most taxpayers and not just the rich. Europe shows that tax 
     systems tilted too far against high earners stifle the 
     incentives that spur economic growth. Welfare systems that 
     are more generous and have fewer strings tend to raise 
     unemployment. Stricter regulation can and does retard 
     innovation. Stronger unions can raise unemployment and, in 
     the aggregate, lower incomes.
       The president cannot be accused of misleading voters. For 
     the most part, he is planning to push through the policies he 
     advocated during the election--policies that the country 
     voted for. His apparent determination to keep his word is 
     unusual, and a little startling, but this is more a criticism 
     of other politicians than of him. Although he cannot be 
     accused, not yet, of breaking promises, I think it is fair to 
     ask whether he has thought through the implications of his 
     agenda taken as a whole. His style of explanation, or 
     salesmanship if you prefer, is heavy on pragmatism and on 
     mending one thing at a time. But the breadth of his program, 
     and the connectedness of his ideas, belie that modest stance.
       As the president said during his Inaugural Address, ``It 
     has been the risk takers, the doers, the makers of things . . 
     . who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward 
     prosperity and freedom.'' That is a very American sentiment. 
     It is fair to ask what the full scope of Obama's 
     transformative agenda implies for the risk takers, the doers, 
     and the makers of things. Aside from higher taxes if they 
     succeed, obviously.

  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, who has 
been such an outstanding spokesman for, I think, the women on our side 
of the aisle, and I appreciate all that she has had to say.
  Let me just kind of return to kind of the thought that I had when we 
started this Special Order. I think that we really do still have to 
recognize that the American people are hurting. It doesn't matter if 
they are low income, middle income, or high income. We have to call 
attention to our economy and the fiscal discipline that we need to 
implement to get this country back on the right track. Not only are our 
people suffering but our country is suffering and so is the 
international economy, and I think that we really need to work 
together.
  As I said before, we want the President and the administration to 
succeed. We need to find the solution to the problems that we face in 
this country and our economy, and I think that we stand here ready and 
willing to help. But we have to do it right. We have to make it happen. 
And I think that's when we'll all work together, and I would hope that 
there would be some sort of a summit where we really focus. I think 
that we are spread out in this first 6 weeks, 7 weeks of an 
administration in what has been happening in health care and the 
economy and education and energy and sciences and all the things that 
we are trying to do at once. I think we need to focus that energy on 
solving the problems of the economy.

                          ____________________