Floor Statements

Well, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

I first want to thank the gentlelady from Minnesota for giving me this time. She has been a real leader in this battle to try to restore some type of fiscal sanity to this government, and I can tell you this:

I represent a little over 700,000 people in East Tennessee. Fortune magazine said in 2000 that the Knoxville area had become the most popular place to move in the whole country based on the number moving in in relation to the fewest moving out. For many, many years now, we have had a tremendous movement in of people from all over the country and, in fact, of many from around the world. About half of the people I represent have moved from someplace else, so I have got a real cross- section of people from almost every State in this country. Over these last few weeks, I can tell you, from spending more time at home than I do up here, that people in East Tennessee think we have just gone almost crazy up here, throwing around trillions just almost in a meaningless, haphazard way.

The gentlelady from Minnesota showed this chart a while ago which says President Obama's budget spends too much, taxes too much, borrows too much. No truer words, Mr. Speaker, were ever said on this floor.

The Congressional Quarterly just yesterday came out with a chart, showing that we are going to add $1.840 trillion to our national debt just this year, and then we are going to add another one $1.370 trillion next year and another $970 billion the year after that. In 3- years' time, we are going to add over $4 trillion to our national debt under the most optimistic scenario by the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office.

That comes on the heels of several weeks ago when this Congress--most of us in the Chamber right at the moment voted against it--voted to raise the national debt limit to $12.104 trillion. That is an incomprehensible figure. Nobody can humanly comprehend that much, but we are going to hand over $4 trillion to that. What it means, Mr. Speaker, is this:

In just a few years, we are not going to be able to pay all of our Social Security and veterans' pensions and all of the things that we have promised our own people. I used to say--and I have heard many people say in the last few weeks even--what we are doing to our children and grandchildren is terrible--and it is--but actually, I think now we are doing it to ourselves because I think that, in 10 or 15 years, if that long, we are not going to be able to pay all of these things we have promised our own people. So I think it is really sad what we are doing to the American people because we are spending too much, taxing too much and borrowing too much.

Joe Scarborough said on his national television program just this morning: We are like a doctor who has diagnosed diabetes in a patient but who has then prescribed a diet of cotton candy. He said: We are like somebody making $100,000 a year who has suddenly gone out and bought ten $1 million houses. He said repeatedly something that I have said many times over these last couple of months: We can't afford it. We are spending money that we do not have, and every place in this world and throughout history, when a government has gotten in the position that we are in, you either have staggering inflation or staggering deflation, and one is just about as bad as the other. I don't have a crystal ball to know which one we are headed into. My guess would probably be staggering inflation. What we are doing is reckless, and what we are doing is dangerous. We passed a stimulus bill, and it had some good things in it, but once again, we were spending money that we did not have.

The Washington Post, which favored the stimulus bill, had a front- page story in which they said it was going to mean a massive financial windfall--those are their words--for Federal agencies. Then they had another story a couple of days later in which they said tens of thousands of new jobs would be added on or new hires would be added on by Federal agencies. That is who is going to benefit from this stimulus package--first Federal agencies, then State agencies. So bureaucrats all over the country are going to come out just fine, and maybe a little bit is going to trickle down to everybody else, but this is not who is hurting. This area is one of the wealthiest areas in the country, this Washington, D.C., northern Virginia, southern Maryland area. Yet they are going to receive a massive financial windfall according to The Washington Post.

On Lou Dobbs last week, he said 4 million jobs had been lost in the private sector in the last year alone. Four million jobs lost. Yet government payrolls had expanded by 151,000. Now, because of what we passed up here, government payrolls are going to expand once again.

There have been so many exaggerations over what is going to be done with this money. A couple of weeks ago, a daily newspaper in Montana reported that the two Montana Senators had put out a press release saying that 40 jobs were going to be created because of a $1.3 million portion of the stimulus package. The paper went to that agency, and that agency said: No, we have already got almost full employment. We are going to add two people because of this, and the rest of it is going to be spent on the employees they already have. So I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed over some of this money that we are spending, and we are spending, as I said, money that we do not have.

Now, two of the Members from Ohio--my colleague Mr. Tiberi and the new Member, Mr. Austria--both mentioned coal and utility bills and things of that nature because it has such a great effect on their State. We have powerful people in this body who are attempting to cut way back and who are attempting, hopefully, to even eliminate coal in this country. Well, I can tell you this: Anybody who is supporting that is going to really hurt the poor and the lower income and the working people because coal provides over 50 percent of our energy in this country today. If we cut way back on coal, we are going to double or triple or quadruple our utility bills, and we are going to hurt a lot of poor and low-income people.

I have noticed throughout the years that most of the environmental radicals and environmental extremists in this country come from very wealthy or very upper income families, and perhaps they don't realize how much they hurt the poor and the lower income and the working people when they destroy jobs and drive up prices. But if they cut way back on coal, that's exactly what is going to happen.

Our leader, Mr. Boehner, mentioned another thing. He said that this bill--and we heard a presentation from the ranking member of the Budget Committee just this morning which said that the President's budget has $1.9

trillion in tax increases in that budget. Jim Cramer, the famous stock man--he's on television every night, and he has been a six-figure contributor to the Democratic Party--he described the President's budget as the greatest wealth killer in history. And I will tell you, that is a pretty serious charge coming from that source: the greatest wealth killer in history.

And we just don't have enough people who understand--there is waste in the private sector but a business who continually wastes money cannot stay in business very long. But a government agency that wastes money, they use that as a justification for getting increased funding the next year.

So every dollar we can keep in the private sector is going to do more to create jobs and hold down prices because money in the private sector is spent so much more efficiently than this money that is turned over to government. Governor Edward Rendell, who is a former chairman of the Democratic Party, when he was mayor of Philadelphia, he testified before a Congressional committee and he said government does not work because it was not designed to. He said there is no incentive for people to work hard, so many do not. There is no incentive to save money, so much of it is squandered. That pretty much summed up the reason that money in the private sector is spent so much more efficiently than money turned over to the government. So every dollar we can keep in the private sector will do more to create jobs and hold down prices.

So we certainly don't need a budget that increases taxes by $1.9 trillion. It has been proven all over the world that when you let government get too big, what you do is you create this elite class at the top, you wipe out the middle class, and you create this huge starvation, or underclass, and certainly we have all traditionally in this country had the biggest middle class in the world because we kept our government--it has been very difficult, but throughout history we have kept our government one of the smallest in proportion to the GDP in this Nation.

I know there are some other people who want to speak. So once again, I want to thank the gentlelady from Minnesota for her hard work and her leadership in regard to the fiscal condition of this government. We need more people like her in the Congress, and it is an honor to serve with her, and I thank her for giving me her time today.

Madam Speaker, Albert Caswell is one of the finest tour guides in the United States Capitol Guide Service. But what many may not know about Albert is that he is also a gifted poet.

Oftentimes, when I run into Albert in the Capitol, he shares his work with me. Recently, he gave me a poem about a man from my District in East Tennessee, Sergeant Brian Schar.

Sergeant Schar served our Nation valiantly during the War on Terror, and in doing so made a sacrifice only few could imagine.

Albert's poem is a tribute to Sergeant Schar's courage and strength as he adjusts to life as a double amputee. While we often hear on the news of the lives lost in the War, we also need reminding of the thousands more who suffered life-altering injuries.

Madam Speaker, I would like to call Albert's poem to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record, and I pray many will be inspired by his words.

Everyday, magnificent men and women like SSG Schar go off

to war and leave their loved ones behind. All for the greater

good, putting themselves last while putting their nation

first. Many lie in graves as the ultimate sacrifice. While,

others like Brian . . . must come home and fight another

battle. While all the time teaching and inspiring us, with

their undying faith and courage to inspires us.

One Thing . . . For Schar

Throughout the course of our nation's history . . .

There have come so many fine patriots who have blessed her so

indeed . . .

And many all from this great state of Tennessee . . ..

Men like Crockett all in their glory . . .

And Sargent York, all the more he . . .

Who, fought and died . . .all so we could be free . . . their

story . . .

Men, who went straight into that face of hell . . .

With hearts of courage full, which swelled . . .

Who all in that moment of truth . . .

Have so showed us the proof . . .

That on this earth, angers dwell . . .

For there have been so many Tennesseans, such fine lives

would create . . .

Men who have so blessed our nation, and this their state . .

.

But, One Thing For Schar . . .

The Tallest of All Tennessean's by far . . .

Are but men like this young star . . .

Men who so bravely lived and died . . .

Who come home without arms and legs . . .

And don't ask why? . . .

For they have a higher calling . . .

As they wipe those tears from their eyes . . .

For he won't moan and he won't beg . . .

As a new war he must wage . . .

As on this day he stands taller, than any other man with legs

. . .

As he must go through hell and back, all so you can say . . .

I am free this day . . .

As one of The Tallest of Tennessean's, he now stands . . .

As it's his heart that which now so commands . . .

Teaching us . . .

Reaching us . . .

Into your our very souls to make us understand . . .

Why we are free, and how beautiful a heart can be . . .

Blessing us all, you and me . . .

As the high cost of freedom we so see . . .

As from his heart he speaks!

Saying, I will not be stopped . . .

I will not be slowed . . .

As a force of nature, as onward he goes . . .

As his fine heart climbs mountains tops . . .

And if I ever have a son . . .

I but hope and pray that he could but be like this fine one .

. .

But, one thing I ask . . .

One, Thing . . . For Schar . . .

As you go home this night . . .

Holding, your family warm and tight . . .

As all in your world, all seems so right . . .

Remember, the great price of freedom paid . . .

Get down on your knee's . . .

And thank this young man so brave . . .

And all of his brothers and sisters in arms, who now so lie

in soft quiet graves!

Just, One Thing For Schar . . .

Albert Carey Caswell , 2009

FAOY This poem is dedicated to a real American Hero Brian

Schar . . . he was injured on September 9th 2007 in an IED

blast . . . SSG Brian Schar of A. Co. 9th Eng 1st ID The

United States Army . . . Brian is a Combat Engineer from

Sevierville Tennessee.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding.

I want to say, first of all, that I will be very brief because there are several other people here who wish to speak. But I want to commend my friend, John Linder, who has worked so hard in advocating the Fair Tax. And I especially want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), for calling this Special Order tonight. The gentleman from Iowa has been a real leader, a real champion in the fight to reduce our taxes and to try to bring Federal spending under some type of control.

This is my 21st year in Congress. And I'll tell you, I have seen some pretty mindboggling spending in that time, but even I have been shocked and astounded by all the spending that we have seen lately, and it just seems to be almost completely out of control. And in all this spending and legislation that we passed just in the last few months, in the midst of that, we've raised our national debt limit to 12 trillion, 104 billion. That's a mindboggling, incomprehensible figure. And nobody can really understand it or relate to it, but David Walker, as many of you know, the former head of the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, has been going around this country trying to be a Paul Revere to sound the warning to say that as troublesome and worrisome as the $12 trillion national debt is, that an even greater problem is what he estimates are now $56 trillion in unfunded future pension liabilities.

And I used to say that what we were doing to our children and grandchildren is terrible, but actually now I say what we're doing to ourselves, because I don't believe it's going to be more than 10 or 15 years, if that long, before we're not able to pay all our Social Security and Medicare and veterans' pensions and all of the things we have promised our own people with money that will buy anything. What we will do, we will do what governments all over the world have done when they have gotten in this situation, they have just started printing more money. And that never works; it's like a ball going downhill. It just means that what people thought was a good pension is not going to work, not going to support them at all.

And every place in this world where the people have let the government get out of control, what has happened is there have been a few elitists at the top, it has basically wiped out the middle class, and there has been a huge starvation class because that is the only thing big government is good at is wiping out the middle class.

I will say this; there is no good reason why we should have a tax code nearly as complicated, convoluted, and confusing as the one we have, where I have read that even half the advice the IRS itself gives out is wrong.

The Fair Tax certainly has a lot of merit to it. Mr. Linder has pointed out so many things. But right now the people who are paying their taxes, their honest share of taxes, they're paying the taxes for the illegal immigrants and the drug dealers and those who work in the underground economy. Under the Fair Tax, the illegal immigrants and the drug dealers would have to start paying their fair share of taxes.

In addition to that, we have--I think it's 65 million foreign tourists. They would help us pay a Fair Tax. They don't help us pay an income tax. And as Mr. Linder just said, we now spend $350 billion just in filling out the tax forms. It is ridiculous that we have a system that is that complicated.

As the gentleman from Iowa pointed out a short time ago, the administration has submitted a $3.9 trillion budget. I noticed that Jim Cramer, the famous stock analyst who is on television every night, he said President Obama's budget may be one of the great wealth destroyers of all time. And that is a significant statement coming from a man who has been a six-figure contributor to the Democratic Party. He said President Obama's budget may be one of the great wealth destroyers of all time. We don't need that, especially in this type of economy.

We don't have enough people who realize this; there is waste in the private sector just like there is waste in the public sector, but the waste in the private sector pales in comparison to the waste that is in the public sector because a business that continually wastes money will very soon go out of business, but a government agency that wastes money just seems to get increased funding. So what that means is that every dollar you can keep in the private sector will do more to create jobs and keep prices low than will any dollars turned over to the government. Yet, I saw on Lou Dobbs last night that in this past year, we've lost four million jobs in the private sector while government employment has increased by 151,000 over the past 12 months. At the same time that individuals and families all over this country are having to cut back, we are giving increases to the government.

The Washington Post, just after the House passed the stimulus--and they supported it, but they said it would mean ``a massive financial windfall''--that's the words they used--``a massive financial windfall'' for Federal agencies. So that is who is coming out good in this, the Federal bureaucrats, Federal agencies. And this area, which was already one of the wealthiest areas in the country, is going to come out just fine under this stimulus package and under this increased spending we're doing.

But about the time we were voting on this stimulus package, 203 leading university economists ran a full-page ad in the Washington Times and they said this; ``We, the undersigned, do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression of the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's ``lost decade'' in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today.''

And these economists continued and said this: ``To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment, and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.''

I will just wind up with a couple more comments. Edward Rendell, the Governor of Pennsylvania, when he was the Mayor of Philadelphia, testified in front of a congressional committee and he said this; ``The problem with government is that there is no incentive for people to work hard, so many do not. There is no incentive to save money, so much of it is squandered.'' And that pretty much sums it up. And that pretty much sums up why the more money you turn over to the government, the less it helps the economy. It helps those who are in with the government, but if you want to really help the poor people and the lower income people in this country, then you will try every way possible to keep more money in the private sector.

We are going in the opposite direction today. I noticed that even the liberal New York Times reporter asked President Obama a few days ago if he was a socialist. And that is the path we're headed down. They may try to deny it. Socialism, though, has not worked anyplace in this world; if it had, the Soviet Union and Cuba would have been heaven on Earth.

I could say more, but I will stop because others want to speak. Once again, I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from Iowa, for bringing us together here tonight. Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, John A. Smaldone of Maryville, Tennessee reads constantly and follows current events more closely than almost anyone.

He recently sent a letter to the editor of the Maryville-Alcoa Daily Times about the death of common sense.

I agree with this letter and would like to call it to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record.

[From the Daily Times, Feb. 27, 2009]

Common Sense Long Deceased

(By John A. Smaldone)

Dear Editor: Today I am sad to announce that we mourn the

passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense. Common sense

has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how

old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in

bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having

cultivated such valuable lessons as: Knowing when to come in

out of the rain; why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't

always fair; and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies

(don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies

(adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-

intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place.

Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment

for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for

using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for

reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for

doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in

disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get

parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a

student; but could not inform parents when a student became

pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live, as the churches became

businesses; and criminals received better treatment than

their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend

yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar

could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live after a woman

failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She

spilled a little in her lap and was promptly awarded a huge

settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth

and Trust; by his wife, Discretion; by his daughter,

Responsibility; and by his son, Reason.

His four stepbrothers survive him;

I Know My Rights.

I Want It Now.

Someone Else Is To Blame.

I'm A Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he

was gone.

Mr. Speaker, today the House, unfortunately, voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Senate lands bill, a $10 billion bill that we simply cannot afford. Fortunately, it did not pass with the required two-thirds vote necessary for passage under suspension of the rules. However, all this really means is that it will now be taken up under regular order, where it should have been in the first place and which requires only a majority vote. Thus there is no question this bill will pass the next time it's taken up.

But I hope more people across this land will start thinking about what we are doing to ourselves. I realize that since we are now throwing around trillions, spending money like never before, that maybe people don't really think that $10 billion sounds like that much anymore. But to anyone who stops to think about it, $10 billion is still an awful lot of money, and it becomes even more when you realize that we are having to borrow all this money we're spending since we surely don't have surplus cash, and we are now 12 trillion 104 billion dollars in debt at the Federal level. I realize that 12 trillion 104 billion is an incomprehensible figure. But what it really means is that we will soon not be able to pay all of our Social Security and veterans' pensions and all the other things we promised our own people with money that will buy anything.

I used to say what we were doing to our children and grandchildren was terrible. But now I believe that tough economic times, already here for many, are going to come for almost everyone in the next 10 or 15 years, if not sooner.

When a family gets deeply, head-over-heels in debt, it gets in even worse trouble if it goes out and greatly increases its spending even more. That is exactly the situation our Federal Government is in today, living way beyond its means.

This lands bill is a combination of 170 bills, which cost $10 billion in total. In addition to that, it is a luxury that we do not need and which will be very harmful in the long run. We already are having trouble funding and taking care of the Federal lands we have now. The National Park Service claims it has a $9 billion backlog on things it needs to do in our 379 national park units. It sounds great for a politician to create a park, but we now have so many parks at the Federal, State, and local levels that we cannot even come close to getting adequate use of them unless all of our people suddenly find a way to go on permanent vacations.

Another problem that few people think about is that we keep creating so many local and State parks, and expanding others, especially at the Federal level, that we are taking way too much land off the tax rolls. We keep decreasing private property at the same time the schools and all the other government agencies keep coming to us telling us they need more money.

These 170 bills, combined into one bill, create 2 million acres of new wilderness, 330,000 acres of national conservation areas, and restrict energy development on millions of acres.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says this bill ``substantially hampers energy development and private property rights by withdrawing millions of acres of land from oil and gas exploration . . . shackling U.S. energy exploration and development at this critical time would substantially jeopardize America's already fragile economy.''

It's going to drive up prices, utility bills, Mr. Speaker, and it's going to destroy jobs.

The Federal Government today owns about 30 percent of the land of this Nation. It has 84 million acres in the National Park System. It has 150 million acres in the Wildlife Refuge System. It has 193 million acres in the National Forest System. I could go on and on with other Federal lands, but it's not necessary.

Then State and local governments and quasi-governmental agencies control another 20 percent of the land. Half the land is now already in some type of public ownership now.

On top of all this, there are now 1,667 land trusts and 1,400 conservancy groups at least. These are figures from 2 years ago; so there may be more now. USA Today, which published these figures, said that these private trusts and conservancy groups control about 40 million acres and that they're taking over an average of more than 2\1/ 2\ million more each year. These lands are eventually sold or turned over to the government at great cost to the taxpayer and causing further increases in taxes on the property that remains in private hands. Then we're putting more and more restrictions or limitations on the private property that can be developed, thus driving up the cost of homes to astronomical levels in many areas.

Mr. Speaker, we are slowly but surely doing away with private property in this country. If we don't wake up and realize that private property is one of the keys to both our prosperity and our freedom, we are going to really cause serious problems for everyone except for the very wealthy.

Madam Speaker, consistent with House Republican Earmark Standards, I am submitting the following earmark disclosure information for project requests that I made and which were included within H.R. 1105, the ``Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009.''

Requesting Member: Congressman John Duncan

Bill Number: H.R. 1105

Account: Corps of Engineers--Section 206

Project Amount: $0--It is a named project.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers--Nashville District, PO Box 1070, Nashville, TN 37202.

Description of Request: Maryville, TN is interested in the restoration of the area's hydrology, streambank stabilization, and construction of a sediment basin. Recommended features include sediment removal, bioengineering restorations, and wetland restoration and development.

I certainly want to first commend the gentlewoman from Minnesota. She has been a real leader in the Congress here in attempting to call attention to the great problems that we're going to face if we don't get our fiscal house in order.

And she just showed an article from the Washington Times. Just yesterday there was another article in the Washington Times that said the Polish currency had dropped 60 percent in value since last August and the Ukrainian currency had dropped in value 43 percent just since last September. And those are the kinds of things that we're going to face.

A few years ago, I was told that in Argentina, they got into such bad fiscal or financial shape that suddenly they had to start raising the prices in the grocery store every 4 hours. And the American people, I don't think, realize how tough and how difficult and how extreme our problems are going to become if we don't get our fiscal house in order.

It's mind-boggling, in fact, it's incomprehensible, that Congress voted a few months ago, and we voted against it, but they voted to raise our national debt to $11.315 trillion. And nobody can really comprehend a figure like that, but what it really means is that it's not going to be long at all before we're not going to be able to pay all of our Social Security and veterans' pensions and all of the things we've promised our own people with money that will buy anything, and people are going to face some really tough times if we're not careful.

Some of our leaders are looking dreamily back at the New Deal, and our colleague from Missouri just gave a quotation from one of President Franklin Roosevelt's Cabinet members. What we are doing now is, unbelievably to me, astoundingly to me, we're almost making Franklin Roosevelt look conservative by what we're doing. And I have talked about debt that we have. Under the administration's most optimistic predictions, we are going to add $4 trillion more to our debt over the next 3 years. I'm in my 21st year in the Congress. I never believed that we would be facing the kinds of deficits and debt that we're taking on and facing over these next 3 years. So I want to commend our colleague from Missouri, Congressman Akin, for his remarks. I heard a lot of the things he had to say, and I know that Judge Carter, our colleague from Texas, is going to speak shortly, and I'm going to just take just another minute or two. But I think this problem that's being discussed here is so very important, we can't emphasize it enough because it overrides and affects everything else that we are talking about here in the Congress.

David Walker, who's the former head of the GAO, has been going all over this country over the last few months trying to be a Paul Revere and sound the warning about what we're facing and what we're getting into, and he talks about the $11 trillion debt that we have, as mind- boggling as that is.

But what is even worse, in one of the Capitol Hill newspapers today, he has a column and he mentions, as he has mentioned before, that we have over $56 trillion of unfunded future pension liabilities. Under our law if a private company sets up a pension plan for its employees, it has to fund it, and its leaders can be put in jail if they don't fund those private pension plans. But our leaders, we've done this very thing over these last few years. It started with the Great Society because President Lyndon Johnson didn't think people would stand in the late 1960s for huge deficits at that time, but what we did back then was just nothing, was minuscule, compared to what we're doing today.

We talked about the New Deal. A few days ago in the Washington Times, 203 leading university economists signed a full-page ad, and they said this:

``We, the undersigned, do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's `lost

decade' in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today.''

These economists, as I said, 203 leading university economists, continued and said this: ``To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment, and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.''

Unfortunately, we're going in the opposite direction now, and it is a very dangerous road. We're going down a socialist path, and socialism, my colleagues, has never worked anyplace in this world. If it had, the Soviet Union and Cuba would have been heavens on Earth. Instead, every place where we have let the government get too big and get out of control from a financial standpoint, we have ended up with a few elitists at the top, almost no middle class, and a huge starvation or underclass. That's the only thing government is good at is wiping out the middle class.

And what we have got to make more people realize is this: There's waste in the private sector, I recognize, just like there's waste in government. But the waste in the private sector pales in comparison to the waste that is in government. So every dollar that we can keep in the private sector does more to hold down prices and create jobs than does any money that's turned over to government, and that's been proven all over the country. And the best way we can help the poor and the lower income and the working people of this country is by keeping more of our money in the private sector where it will be spent much more economically and efficiently than it will be if we turn it over to the government.

I know there are others that want to speak, and I have taken up more time than I should have, but I once again want to thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for taking out this Special Order and for all the good work that she does in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, in today's Congressional Quarterly, it says the Presidential helicopter program is now $6.5 billion over budget. This is double the Pentagon's original estimate. Even President Obama said this was ``an example of the procurement process gone amok.''

It seems that the Pentagon cannot complete any major program without huge cost overruns. Almost on every Federal program we are given low- ball estimates of the cost on the front end, and then costs just explode. This has nothing to do with the current President, but no President needs 28 helicopters.

The current estimate is that these helicopters will cost at least $13 billion. But the way the Pentagon is operating these days, these helicopters will end up costing several billion more unless the number is cut way back to something a little less ridiculous.

It makes you wonder, Mr. Speaker, if there are any fiscal conservatives in the Defense Department.

Madam Speaker, in yesterday's Washington Times is an article about a very controversial bridge project through the Florida Everglades.

This project has been strongly opposed by the Miccosukee Tribe through whose land this bridge would be built.

A federal judge has blasted this projected bridge in a scathing opinion, but our Omnibus bill ordered that it be constructed anyway.

The estimated cost is $225 million, but because almost all federal projects are given lowball estimates on the front end, it would probably end up costing much, much more. I have discussed this project with my friend, Representative Mario Diaz-Balart in whose district this bridge project is located.

He told me he has discussed this bridge with the Army Corps of Engineers and all of the interested parties.

He believes that, while a bridge may have to be built at some point, that other, cheaper alternatives should be considered first.

I agree with Representative Balart, for whom I have the greatest respect.

I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record the following article about this project from the Washington Times.

[From the Washington Times]

`Bridge to Nowhere' OK'd for Everglades

(By Stephen Dinan)

A provision buried inside Congress' giant spending bill

would overturn a federal court order, discard part of

environmental law and reject an Indian tribe's plea, forcing

the government to build a bridge in Everglades National Park

that a federal judge declared ``a complete waste of taxpayer

dollars.''

The project is being opposed by the Miccosukee tribe, and

U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro called it an

``environmental bridge to nowhere.'' She ordered the

government in November to comply with federal environmental

laws, which would further delay the long-controversial

project.

But lawmakers inserted a provision in the 1,123-page

omnibus spending bill that is pending in the Senate. It

waives those laws and in sweeping language orders the Army

Corps of Engineers to begin building the bridge ``immediately

and without further delay.''

Those pushing for the bridge, which would elevate the

Tamiami Trail roadway to allow water to flow freely into the

Everglades, say Congress' urgency is justified.

``The project has been studied and delayed over and over

again for 20 years. Meantime, one of the world's great

treasures continues to die,'' said Dan McLaughlin, a

spokesman for Sen. Bill Nelson, Florida Democrat. ``The

National Academy of Sciences, in a report to Congress, says

the bridge is needed to allow water north of the road to flow

south into the Everglades. Senator Nelson supports it. It's

absolutely essential to restoring the `Glades. No bridge--no

water flow. No water--no Everglades.''

But the Miccosukee, who went to court last year to stop the

bridge, are crying foul, saying it's hypocritical of Congress

to ignore its own environmental laws.

The tribe also said that overturning a court order smacks

of the broken treaties and poor treatment Indians suffered in

years past.

``You tell the tribe to follow the law, but when the tribe

follows the law and wins, you throw them out of court. It's

really immoral and unconscionable,'' said Dexter Lehtinen, an

attorney for the tribe. His wife is Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,

a Florida Republican who Mr. Lehtinen said recuses herself

from these matters.

The $212 million bridge is part of a complex and

contentious decades-old plan to try to restore the free flow

of water through the Everglades, the swamp that covers much

of southern Florida and is considered critical to the state's

ecosystem. Decades of development and road-building have

ruined the usual water flows.

Plans to restore water flow have changed repeatedly, and

parts have been caught up in litigation, including the

proposal to build a one-mile-long bridge along the northern

park boundary at the Tamiami Trail, or U.S. Highway 41, which

backers say would help the free flow.

The Miccosukee trace their time in the Everglades back to

the 1700s when they moved to avoid encroaching upon European

settlers farther north, in what is now Georgia, Alabama and

northern Florida. They gained U.S. government recognition in

1962 and have both official reservation land and other land

in perpetual lease.

Rather than the bridge, the tribe wants the government to

instead clean out culverts and build swells that the

Miccosukee say better and more cheaply restore water flow.

``The judge found that the likelihood is that people in

Miami-Dade County are going to be flooded, there's not going

to be any benefit to Everglades National Park, and Miccosukee

land is going to be further damaged,'' said Terry Rice, owner

of an environmental services company and a former head of the

Army Corps of Engineers district that includes the

Everglades, who served as a witness for the tribe in court.

``Why do you say you have to build a project and you're not

going to abide by any laws unless you can't abide by the

laws?'' Mr. Rice said.

The judge apparently agreed.

In issuing her preliminary injunction against the bridge,

she said it won't begin to help water flow until the corps

takes other steps, which are still in the planning stages.

Given that, the judge said, rushing to build the project

amounts to ``no more than construction of an `environmental

bridge to nowhere' that accomplishes (and harms) nothing but

which would be a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.''

Backers acknowledged that tacking this sort of provision

onto a spending bill was unusual, but said the bridge has

widespread support, and only the tribe--and now the federal

judge--objected.

Still, it could not be learned Monday who approved the

insertion of the provision that forces the bridge to be built

into the $410 billion spending bill making its way through

Congress.

The Miccosukee, in an ad last week, blamed House Speaker

Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for the

measure. The tribe called it ``a lamentable blast from the

past in American history.''

But both leaders' offices said they weren't responsible.

``We had nothing to do with this,'' said Jim Manley, a

spokesman for Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat.

``This language was included at the request of the Bush

administration and has bipartisan support. Neither the

speaker nor her office played a role in its inclusion,'' said

Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Mrs. Pelosi, California

Democrat.

The Army Corps of Engineers also said it wasn't the source.

``To our knowledge the corps did not promote or draft this

language,'' said spokeswoman Lt. Col Elizabeth Robbins.

The Interior Department did not return messages for

comment.

Spokesmen for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat,

and Rep. Norm Dicks, Washington Democrat, the chairmen of the

Senate and House subcommittees that wrote the parts of the

bill funding the Interior Department, didn't have a comment

Monday night.

A spokeswoman said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, a Florida

Republican whose district could be affected, was unavailable,

while a spokeswoman for Sen. Mel Martinez, Florida

Republican, said the senator did not request the provision,

but she said she couldn't say whether he supported it.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat whose

district is also affected, does support moving forward, said

spokesman Jonathan Beeton.

``The congresswoman supports this project because it is the

essential next step in Everglades restoration,'' Mr. Beeton

said. ``This view is supported by the National Academy of

Sciences. At the same time, she understands the concerns and

the deep commitment of the Miccosukee Tribe to the

restoration of the Everglades.''

Several Democrats pointed to the Bush administration's

support for the provision. But that came in his fiscal 2009

budget, submitted nine months before the judge ruled that the

environmental laws hadn't been followed.

Madam Speaker, the President has announced we will soon be sending an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan, bringing our total there to approximately 55,000.

A few days ago, I read a one-line mention in a story that the Defense Department, which is now the Department of Foreign Aid, was going to spend $100 million to build a new road in Afghanistan. I think our Founding Fathers would think we had flipped out or lost our minds to spend $100 million to build a road in Afghanistan, especially since we are over $11 trillion in debt and thus are spending money that we do not have. Of course, $100 million is just a tiny drop in the bucket of the billions and billions that we have spent over there since 2001, in an impoverished country that is no realistic threat to us whatsoever.

Of course, every giant bureaucracy is doing everything it can to expand its mission and exaggerating its threats so it can get more money. That is what the war in Afghanistan is really all about--money and power instead of any real threat.

According to the Congressional Research Service, we have spent $173 billion in Afghanistan since 2001, and as far as I'm concerned, it's pouring money down a rat hole. It is a complete waste. I think if there are any fiscal conservatives left in Congress, they should be horrified by the waste that is going on over there.

General Petraeus said in an article in the Washington Post a few days ago that the situation in Afghanistan, despite all of this money, has deteriorated markedly in the past 2 years. Those were his words. He said Afghanistan has been known over the years as the graveyard of empires, and if we're not careful, it's going to help be the graveyard of our empire as well.

Professor Ian Lustick of the University of Pennsylvania wrote recently about the money feeding frenzy of the war on terror and he wrote this: ``Nearly 7 years after September 11, 2001, what accounts for the vast discrepancy between the terrorist threat facing America and the scale of our response? Why, absent any evidence of a serious terror threat, is a war on terror so enormous, so all-encompassing, and still expanding?

``The fundamental answer is that Al Qaeda's most important accomplishment was not to hijack our planes but to hijack our political system.

``For a multitude of politicians, interest groups and professional associations, corporations, media organizations, universities, local and State governments, and Federal agency officials, the war on terror is now a major profit center, a funding bonanza, and a set of slogans and soundbites to be inserted into budget, project, grant, and contract proposals.''

And finally, Professor Lustick wrote, ``For the country as a whole, however, it has become a maelstrom of waste.''

Now we have a national debt of $11.315 trillion, an incomprehensible figure--and the GAO tells us in addition that we have over $55 trillion in unfunded future pension liabilities.

It's just not going to be long at all before we're not going to be able to pay all of our Social Security and Medicare, veterans pensions, and all the things we have promised our own people if we don't stop spending money in ridiculously wasteful ways.

And, of course, what does the Defense Department tell us? Just as they always do: What they want is more money to spend in Afghanistan and more troops in every place else.

Bruce Fein, who was a high-ranking official in the Reagan administration, wrote just a few days ago in the Washington Times that it is ridiculous that we now have troops in 135 countries and approximately 1,400 military installations around the world. And he said we should redeploy our troops to the United States.

He said, ``No country would dare attack our defenses and our retaliatory capability would be invincible. Esprit de corps would be at its zenith because soldiers would be fighting to protect American lives on American soil, not Afghan peasants.''

And he wrote this: ``The redeployment would end the United States casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, it would end the foreign resentments or enemies created by unintended killing of civilians and the insult to pride excited by foreign occupation.''

At the end of this column, he wrote: ``The American empire should be abandoned and the republic restored. The United States would be safer, freer, and wealthier.'' And, Madam Speaker, I can tell you, I agree with him.

Madam Speaker, a few days ago, just before we voted on the so-called stimulus package, The Washington Post said in a story that it would mean a ``massive financial windfall for Federal agencies.'' The Post was for the bill, but those were the words the paper used, ``massive financial windfall for Federal agencies.''

Then on the front page of today's Washington Post is a story saying, ``Tens of thousands could be added to Federal payroll'' under the President's budget. The story says, ``President Obama's budget is so ambitious with vast new spending that experts say he will need to hire tens of thousands of new Federal Government workers.''

All over the country, people think they are going to get stimulus money or checks from all this spending, yet the ones who will benefit the most are those who need it the least--Federal bureaucrats. Very little, Madam Speaker, is going to trickle down to the rest of the country.

Madam Speaker, consistent with House Republican Earmark Standards, I am submitting the following earmark disclosure information for project requests that I made and which were included within H.R. 1105, the ``Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009.''

Requesting Member: Congressman John Duncan

Bill Number: H.R. 1105

Account: Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service--

Madam Speaker, on the 200th birthday of our great President, Abraham Lincoln, I rise to pay tribute to his accomplishments. But primarily I want to tell my colleagues and others about Tennessee's great Lincoln Memorial University.

General Howard, President Lincoln's main military adviser, said the President told him that the people of east Tennessee had been loyal to the Union, and he wanted to form a school for them. Remembering Lincoln's words, General Howard formed LMU in 1897. Today, the university is reaching new heights. It has the Nation's newest medical school, and it is in the process of forming a new law school. Its main campus is in a beautiful setting in Harrogate, Tennessee, but it has very large

nursing and graduate education programs in Knoxville, which will also be the home for the law school.

Under the great leadership of President Nancy Moody, Vice President Cindy Witt and Board Chairman Pete DeBusk, the university has its highest enrollment ever. The main mission of the school is to educate the young people of Appalachia, 97 percent of whom receive financial aid.

Lincoln Memorial University, Madam Speaker, also has an outstanding Lincoln Museum and continues to be in every way a fitting tribute to a great President.

Mr. Speaker, when a family is deeply head-over-heels in debt, they don't go out and borrow even more so they can double or triple spending, even if it would help the economy. And that is exactly the situation our government is in in regard to the so-called stimulus package, which we will take up again next week.

I voted against the big bailout of our financial firms both times. But the majority voted for this, and raised our national debt limit to an astounding $11.315 trillion. No one can comprehend a figure like $11.315 trillion. However, even worse, the Government Accountability Office has told us that we have over $55 trillion in unfunded future pension liabilities.

If we don't bring Federal spending under control, we will soon not be able to pay all of our Social Security, veterans' pensions, and all the other things we have promised our own people with money that will buy anything.

The Federal Government has become addicted to spending. The stimulus is a short-term fix that will cause even more serious problems in the very near future. Drug addicts prove every day that short-term fixes do not satisfy for very long.

When another Member of this body was asked a few days ago on MSNBC that, since our house was on fire, did we not need to pour water on it? He replied, Yes, but what we are doing with this stimulus package is like pouring kerosene on that fire.

The bill has some good things in it, but we simply cannot afford them. Probably the falsest charge made against those who oppose this stimulus is that we have to do something, and that if you vote against this, you're voting to do nothing.

First of all, we have, through the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, taken hundreds of billions of dollars worth of action in just the last few months. Because we rushed into some of those moves, we have been finding out that some of that money has been spent in ways that are simply ridiculous and in ways that justifiably angered the taxpayers.

One example. In fact, the Bank of America took $7 billion of the first $15 billion it received and increased its investment in a bank in China.

Now we are rushing through this stimulus package, and the taxpayers will find out over the next few weeks or months some of the ridiculous or wasteful things this money will be spent on.

What we should do is give these hundreds of billions in actions already taken some time to work, coupled with some really effective stimulus moves, like a cut in the payroll tax and a tax credit for people who buy or build homes or purchase cars or equipment.

Now, some of our leaders seem to be looking back in a dreamily but blind way to the New Deal. Most historians do not seem to realize this, but most economists realize that the New Deal delayed our recovery during the Depression.

In fact, in today's Washington Times, Mr. Speaker, 203 leading university economists have signed a full page ad which says, ``We, the undersigned, do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's ``lost decade'' in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today.''

These economists continue, ``To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.''

That is an ad signed by 203 leading university economists in today's Washington Times.

Unemployment--just speaking about that--unemployment averaged over 17 percent a year all through the 1930s, and even averaged 10 percent during World War II. The Nation did not really begin the return to prosperity until after World War II ended.

Those who do not believe this should read a 2003 book by Jim Powell, called FDR's Folly--How Roosevelt and his New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression. Mr. Powell quotes David Kennedy, who wrote a Pulitzer Price-winning book in 1999, called Freedom From Fear, about the Great Depression.

Mr. Kennedy wrote, ``Whatever it was, the New Deal was not a recovery program or, at least at any rate, not an effective one.''

Economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway wrote in 1977 that New Deal policies raised, ``labor costs, prolonging the misery of the Great Depression, and creating a situation where many people were living in rising prosperity at a time when millions of others were suffering severe deprivation.''

Vedder and Gallaway estimated that by 1940, unemployment was eight points higher than it would have been in the absence of higher payroll costs imposed by New Deal policies.

Economists Thomas Hall and J. David Ferguson reported, ``It is difficult to ascertain just how much the New Deal programs had to do with keeping the unemployment rate high, but surely they were important. A combination of fixing farm prices, promoting labor unions, and passing a series of antibusiness tax laws would certainly have had a negative impact on employment.''

Economist David Bernstein reported, ``New Deal labor policies contributed to a persistent increase in African American unemployment.''

Historian Michael Bernstein made a case that New Deal agriculture policies ``sacrificed the interests of the marginal and the unrecognized to the welfare of those with greater political and economic power.''

Mr. Powell summed his book up by saying, ``A principle lesson for us today is that if economic shocks are followed by sound policies, we can avoid another Great Depression. A government will best promote a speedy business recovery by making recovery the top priority, which means letting people keep more of their money, removing obstacles to productive enterprise, and providing stable money and a political climate where investors feel that it's safe to invest for the future.''

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the bill that it brings to the floor. The bill has some good things in it, but we simply can't afford them.

When a family falls deeply head over heels into debt, it doesn't go out and immediately and greatly increase its spending. If it does, it gets in even worse trouble.

The majority voted to increase our national debt to an incomprehensible $11.315 trillion in the last big bailout bill. Now we are told we face trillion-dollar deficits for several years to come.

We simply cannot afford this so-called stimulus package. All it is really a short-term fix for our addiction to spending. And it's false to say if we don't pass this package, we are voting to do nothing. We haven't given enough time to see what effect all the trillions of dollars of actions taken by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury over the last few months have had and will have.

Most Americans support more spending on our infrastructure, but this is less than 8 percent of this bill, and highway spending is only 3 percent. We could do far more, Madam Speaker, for our economy at far less cost if we would give significant tax credits to anyone who would buy or build a new home and people who would buy new or used cars and trucks.