Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that privilege. Thank you for the opportunity to be able to be here this evening and the opportunity to be able to address the American people. We had a rather extraordinary day yesterday and today with what we…
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that privilege. Thank you for the opportunity to be able to be here this evening and the opportunity to be able to address the American people.
We had a rather extraordinary day yesterday and today with what we have
seen happening in our Nation that has really been extraordinary throughout 2009. We have seen such tremendous differences take place.
The American people are very concerned, and rightly so, about our economy. They are wondering how the economy will turn around, when it will turn around, when their own personal fortunes will change; and they have seen some extraordinary things take place, Mr. Speaker.
The American people have seen the stimulus plan that came through, which was about $1.1 trillion in spending that was passed by this body, signed by the President of the United States, an extraordinary historic level of spending that we have never seen before just to goose our economy, get it going so that we can get back to where we need to be, to get job creation. That is what people want to see. We all the want to see that. But we all held our breath.
I voted against the stimulus bill. We held our breath thinking, how in the world would we ever begin to replace all of that money that we are about to spend? Because, as everyone knows, there is no vault here in Washington, D.C., that holds $1.1 trillion that we can just send out to the American people. There is no money there. We have to go somewhere to get that money. We either have to tax it from the American people and bring it to Washington, D.C., and then spread it around so that other people can have it, or we have to borrow it from other countries like China, for instance, who, quite recently, has said to our President that China is very concerned.
The specter of the Chinese communists lecturing the United States on whether or not they feel comfortable about their investment here in the United States is really quite a first. And now, we have seen the European socialists also lecture the United States saying they are worried. As a matter of fact, we saw the Premier from Czechoslovakia say that the road the United States is taking, in his words, is the road to hell. He doesn't want to see the European socialists go down that road as well.
So as the G-20 is about to come together in London to meet and talk about this global economic meltdown, we have seen quite a specter occur. We have seen the Prime Minister from England come here to the United States, as a matter of fact, stand here in this body and address a joint session of Congress and essentially call for a global cooperation to have a global answer to this stimulus. That makes a lot of Americans quite nervous when we hear that kind of rhetoric.
Then, just recently we heard also from a leader down in the Latin American countries say that it is people with blonde hair and blue eyes that have caused this economic meltdown. Of course, that is an outrage to make a statement like that.
All of these things the American people have been seeing, and they have been thinking about them, wondering, what does all of this mean? And they saw again this body spend $1.1 trillion, and then shortly after that spend $410 billion in a budget spending bill that will just spend through this year of 2009. But in that bill, they saw almost 9,000 earmarks in that bill.
And the American people said: Now, wait a minute. I can't spend that kind of money. As a matter of fact, the American people said: Look, I saved 5 percent of my income in January, a historic high of savings for Americans.
Just a year ago or so, Americans had a negative savings rate of .1 percent. Now, Americans have been doing just the reverse. They have been doing what most normal people do when they are in an economic situation of fear. They decide to pull back on their spending, they pull in, and they say, I had better think twice before I buy that fancy cup of coffee. I had better think twice before I decide to plunk down money and buy a new car. They think twice about what they are going to do about changing their home environment and their situation, because they are worried. They are worried about whether they will have a job next week or next month or next year.
So it is very difficult right now, Mr. Speaker, for the American people to make financial commitments when they look at the level of spending that is going on around them. So what are they doing? They are saving.
Just this last month we saw that the American people in the month of February were saving at a rate of 4.5 percent. That is a good thing. I think it is a good thing the American people are showing the example for the United States Congress and for the President to say, this is what we need to do.
Instead of spending money we don't have on a personal level, on a Federal level, on a State level, on a local level, the American people are living through their own lifestyles and their own choices what they wish their government would replicate, and that is this: Start pulling back on the spending.
And what has this government done? What has the Obama presidency done, Mr. Speaker? What has this body done, Mr. Speaker, the House and the Senate? We have done just the opposite of what the American people are doing. The Democrat-controlled Congress and the President have made an unprecedented decision to spend money hand over fist, $1.1 trillion on stimulus spending money, $410 billion on budget spending for the rest of the year, along with all of the other money that has been going out the door.
Now, this week we have the President asking the House of Representatives, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to spend, get this, $4 trillion; commit the American people to spending $4 trillion in the upcoming budget. This is almost beyond comprehension, $4 trillion.
What does that work out to? For 300 million Americans, that is an immediate debt burden of $13,000 per American. Every man, woman, and child in America would have that immediate debt burden placed on their shoulders when they can't begin to afford what the Congress has already been spending, historic levels of spending. $4 trillion?
And it isn't just the spending alone; it is what is being spent on. We are looking at socialized medicine for the first time in the United States, socialized medicine coming in through this bill. And in one vote, the Speaker of the House and the President are asking this body, the people's House, the United States House of Representatives to spend $4 trillion of their money for socialized medicine. So serious is socialized medicine that we need to spend some time on that issue, we need to spend some serious time.
Mr. Speaker, I just downloaded off of the Internet today stories about just two countries where socialized medicine was passed into the law and implemented, in the United Kingdom in England and Scotland and Wales, and also in Canada. I have just this many stories chronicling just the last year or so of headlines of what socialized medicine has looked like in those English-speaking neighbors of ours, in Canada to the north and in the United Kingdom.
I think it is instructive for the United States Congress to take a look at what the experience has been of other countries, and I hope we have time to get into some of these stories about what socialized medicine has looked like in these other English-speaking Nations.
Well, that isn't all, Mr. Speaker, socialized medicine and the grand leap forward into socialism. We are also looking at the specter of tremendous new taxes, punishing new taxes, not just for some, not just for 5 percent as President Obama had promised, but for 100 percent of the American people.
When the President of the United States stood here in this body, stood right there at the lectern looking out at the joint session of Congress where Cabinet members were present and where the American people watched in a historic number, 40 million Americans watched, heard the President of the United States say quite clearly to them in a straightforward manner he would not increase taxes on 95 percent of the American people. And in the same evening and in the same address to the American people, the President contradicted himself, Mr. Speaker, with these words when he said he was committed to putting into place the cap-and-trade system, the new global warming energy tax, which will now be a tax on 100 percent of all Americans.
And how is that? It will be felt in the form of our energy bills. Whether we have electric bills every month that we pay or whether we have gas bills that we pay every month, those bills in many parts of the country will in fact double.
I come from the State of Minnesota. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, we are expected
to have 12 inches of snow in Minnesota. We have had quite a week. We had a horrible flood situation up in the Fargo-Moorhead region. Thank God, we saw that recede a little bit. It wasn't as bad as we thought it was going to be. People's prayers were answered. On the front page this morning of the Twin Cities newspaper we saw a beautiful picture of the Assemblies of God Church up in the Fargo-Moorhead region; they had been praying all weekend that God would withhold the waters. And God clearly answered those prayers, Mr. Speaker. Those cities have not been devastated as much was we once thought they would be.
But the devastation that we are looking at now again is in this area of taxing. And in Minnesota, as I said, we are seeing 12 inches of snow in the Twin Cities area and in southern Minnesota in particular, maybe 10 inches in northern Minnesota.
But in Minnesota, Mr. Speaker, the people don't have a choice. Just like in many regions across the United States, the people don't have a choice. They have to turn on their air conditioning in the summer and they have to turn on their furnaces in the winter; otherwise, life is simply unbearable. And what will President Obama and the Democrat's budget look like here in this Chamber?
Well, this week, Mr. Speaker, President Obama and the Democrats that control the House and the Senate are forcing a vote on this body that would mandate that we would have increases in everyone's electric bills. And whether it comes in this budget bill or in a separate bill, President Obama made it clear; he made it very clear last week when he had his press conference, Mr. Speaker, when he said this: It is not negotiable to leave out this energy tax. He is insisting that the American people pay the energy tax. And in Minnesota, we are calculated to see a doubling in our energy bills. A doubling, Mr. Speaker. This is unheard of.
I don't know where people in Minnesota will go. We are experiencing very high, unusual rates of unemployment. Minnesota is a diversified economy. We are such a great State with awesome employers, but for the first time in perhaps 25 years we have seen unemployment in a State as diverse as Minnesota spike.
In one of my largest cities, Mr. Speaker, I was told last week by one of my constituents that, in my largest city, that we are seeing unemployment now at 9.8 percent. In one of my counties, Mr. Speaker, I was told that one of my counties has unemployment now reaching 10 percent.
Where are these people going to go, Mr. Speaker, when this body decides to pass a budget that will tax them $4 trillion, that will impose out a doubling on their energy bills? What are families going to do?
My husband and I are in a couple's Bible study, Mr. Speaker. And I was so sad to learn this winter in this couple's Bible study that another couple in one of the family members' churches was turning their heat down to 55 degrees. That is cold, Mr. Speaker. They have little children in their home. And this couple told us their daughter didn't want to go over after school and play in this family's home because it was going to be too cold for her. The last time she had been there visiting her girlfriend, the house was set so cold she was uncomfortable. But this family didn't know what to do. They were worried, they were afraid, they were scared because the husband had lost his job and the wife had lost their job, and they were trying to keep their kids warm. But they had a very difficult time doing it, so they were turning their heat down.
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, if I have to go back to the sixth district of Minnesota and tell the people in my district that President Obama and the Democrats that run this Chamber have asked me to vote on a bill that would double their energy tax bill? They are at home now, Mr. Speaker, with 55 degrees just trying to keep their kids warm, figuring out some way to get through this very long winter, and now I have to go home and tell them that this body wants to impose a burden on them that would double their tax bill? I can't do that.
And I won't do that. I won't vote for a measure like that. It won't happen. And my bet is that a lot of other Members are going to see it that way too. My bet is, Mr. Speaker, that when we go home after this week and talk to our constituents, they are going to look at us, Mr. Speaker, and they are going to say, are you crazy? Were you crazy in this economic climate to heap yet one more burden on me?
It reminds me of that Biblical story, Mr. Speaker, where Pharaoh said to the Hebrew children, who were slaves in Egypt, when he said to them, tell them to make bricks, but don't give them straw. Let them find their own straw to make bricks. That's what it seems like President Obama and the Democrats that are running the House and the Senate are doing to the American people right now, heaping burdens on them to such an extent that now they are being told that they must find their own straw to make their bricks, when they already are turning their thermostats down so that they can just survive and get through the winter. This is not the United States of America that we grew up in. We don't do this, Mr. Speaker, to our people.
I see that I have two colleagues that have joined me this evening. I would like to defer now to my marvelous colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Scott Garrett. He serves with me, Mr. Speaker, on the Financial Services Committee. He hails from New Jersey and he is doing a wonderful job on behalf of his constituents working so hard to ensure that this Congress doesn't spend too much, doesn't tax too much and certainly doesn't borrow too much so that those who are yet unborn and without jobs will have to be laboring away to be able to pay for these profligate spending bills.
I defer now to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Scott Garrett .
The gentleman may want to hide those couple of dollars. Uncle Sam is looking for a few more.
What happened to the era of bipartisanship, if I can ask the gentleman?
How big was that budget deficit, did you say, Mr. Garrett?
And this was responsibility, that new era of responsibility?
So that means out of a dollar, Mr. Garrett, that 27 cents of every dollar that is spent in the United States is spent by government?
And now that has been amended to $2 trillion because the President's chief deputy on this issue, Jason, I can't remember his last name, his senior aide on the issue of the new global warming energy tax, cap and tax, made the statement last week that it isn't $646 billion that the place marker is at. It is actually $2 trillion in new taxes.
Actually, that was in the Wall Street Journal today and also in Investor's Business Daily, the Energy Secretary, Mr. Chu, had made that comment about tariffs.
Now this is incredible, because if you look back in history to the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, one of the biggest problems that led to prolonged depression was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Now this is something that is being suggested by our Energy Secretary, Mr. Chu, new tariffs. And what he is suggesting is that if other countries don't participate in this new cap-and-tax system, then the United States would charge tariffs equal to what those countries would have to pay in cap-and-tax systems. So we are looking at erecting profound new tariffs that will completely change the United States economy.
They will jack up.
I appreciate the gentleman's remarks from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) because in Investor's Business Daily today, they had a chart that perfectly illustrated what you were saying with the Great Depression. If you look at the skyrocketing prices that we will see under a tariff-based system and the skyrocketing taxes and the job losses, those three together are the great indicators of another Great Depression.
We are not here fear-mongering. That is not what we are interested in doing. But what we are doing is laying the table for the Obama administration's budget. The Democrats control the House and Senate. They are laying out the budget this week for this body to take a vote on. And the specter of having leakage, which is massive outsourcing of jobs, high taxes and high prices, that is not what the American people are asking for.
We are joined this evening by Dr. Phil Gingrey, a gentleman from Georgia who is a tremendous advocate for free markets and for free markets and health care who is down here on the floor helping us frequently on these measures.
And Dr. Gingrey, I now yield to you so we can go back and forth. We would love to hear what you have to say on this subject of the budget.
Thank you so much, Mr. Gingrey.
We have several other things to talk about that occurred today, one of which was talked about, I think, in almost every paper across the United States, as well as every media outlet. On the Wall Street Journal today the headline today was ``Government Forces Out Wagoner at GM.'' This really is unprecedented.
And Mr. Speaker, I just need to read the first opening paragraph. It says, ``The Obama administration used the threat of withholding more bailout money to force out General Motors Corporation chief executives, which marked one of the most dramatic government interventions in private industry since the economic crisis began last year.''
Now, this is in the United States. We have the presidency, under some authority, pushing out a CEO, the head of the largest car manufacturer in the United States.
This goes on to say, ``The government has demanded the ouster of the head of AIG, American International Group, but only as it took a majority shareholder position.'' In this case, in GM, the administration has ousted a major CEO as part of an ongoing restructuring.
When we thought we couldn't be outraged any more, when we thought we wouldn't see anything more audacious, we see it yet again. Here is a company, Mr. Speaker, where we have the President deciding who's going to lead the company and who isn't going to lead the company.
And I was so curious today, I listened to President Obama's remarks that he made. This is from the White House. I encourage all Americans to go and read these remarks for themselves. It's remarks by the President on the American automotive industry. I don't think we've ever seen anything quite like this. It's emblematic of where this administration is taking the American taxpayer in this budget.
Now we're seeing the President and the Democrat-controlled Congress wanting to run virtually every aspect of American's lives, from health care, every aspect of health care, which is 18 percent of our economy, to running the banking system, to running the largest insurance company in the United States, to running the secondary mortgage market, and now to running the largest automobile company in America and the second largest automobile company in America.
Today, President Obama said, ``We cannot and must not, we will not let our auto industry vanish,'' which is great. And I'm wondering how he'll do it. With cutting taxes? I've read his speech. There's nothing here about cutting taxes. With cutting regulations maybe. That might help Detroit. There's nothing in here about cutting regulations.
How about cheaper energy? Wasn't that a big problem last July when gas prices were soaring over $4 a gallon on their way to 6, 8, who knows what? Maybe cheaper energy. Maybe we'll be able to start getting that oil, the shale oil out of the Western Rocky area. Maybe cheaper oil. No, there's nothing in these remarks about cheaper American oil. Nothing at all. In fact, what we see is just the opposite.
We see the President of the United States intervening personally to topple the head of GM. And then we see the President intervening personally to take a hand at rewriting the restructuring of these two once great American car companies.
And as a matter of fact, he goes on to say that he's made a decision to have these car companies become, telling them what they're going to produce with their products with the new clean car companies. And, in fact, he goes on to say that the car industry isn't moving in the right direction. He's going to decide what that direction is. And it's not moving fast enough. The President is going to decide how fast it's going to move. He goes on to say, the United States government has no interest in running GM. But then in the next line he says, but we're going to give GM an opportunity to finally make those much-needed changes.
He goes on to say that General Motors, which I think now we'll have to call Government Motors after this move, that the new General Motors is going to have to work together with the Obama administration to clean up their balance sheets, consolidate unprofitable brands, and figure out what future investments they're going to make.
But then he goes on to Chrysler, and the President says this. ``The situation at Chrysler is more challenging. It's with deep reluctance that we've determined, after careful review, that Chrysler needs a partner to remain viable.'' And we find out that the President has already worked with an international car manufacturer, Fiat Motors, and he wants Fiat Motors to come in, merge with Chrysler. And then, upon a successful merger, under President Obama's plan, then the American taxpayer will be good enough, Mr. Speaker, to come in with $6 billion. And now the company will be owned by Fiat, a foreign company, located in the United States, but with $6 billion in American taxpayer money.
Mr. Speaker, the President's remarks today are nothing more than industrial policy that you would see in Eastern bloc nations. I urge every American to download the President's comments that he made today. This is the future that we are looking at in the United States. It is not good enough to have the Federal Government just take over banks, to just take over insurance companies, to just take over secondary mortgage markets, to just bankrupt our country, and to punish with new energy tax increases.
Now the American Government is thinking it is smarter than car companies, and they are going to approve plans, decide which product, and then the American people are going to come in and buy the cars--buy fleets for bureaucrats. That is in President Obama's remarks. American people will be buying new cars for bureaucrats. That is how we are going to bail out Detroit. Now, this would be humorous if it were not so serious. This is all part of President Obama's plan.
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake: this has absolutely nothing to do with free markets. Nothing. That is why the Chinese Communists are very nervous right now about the American economy, because they kind of like the way our free markets work. Otherwise, they would have invested in Communist countries; they would have invested in socialist countries, but they chose to invest in a free market country, but now the Chinese Communists are nervous, and they are telling President Obama, we're not too sure about your investments, and European socialists are saying the same thing: We're not too sure about your investments, because what is it that the President now, Mr. Speaker, is embracing? He is embarking upon an industrial policy that this country was smart enough to have nothing to do with.
I encourage the American people: you need to download President Obama's remarks today that he made from the White House on the United States essentially taking over and running roughshod over GM and Chrysler.
With that, I would like to hand it back to my colleague from Georgia.
If the gentleman would yield, I think it is even more than just taking a look at another bailout. There is certainly another bailout on the horizon. The President even indicated as much in his remarks today. He has already told these companies what it is going to be. Chrysler would get $6 billion if Chrysler, essentially, goes away and lets Fiat buy them out. That is what is going to happen. The American people need to realize this. Under President Obama's plan, Chrysler will be history, and Fiat will come in. A foreign company will come into the United States, will purchase Chrysler, and then we taxpayers are expected to pony up $6 billion to a foreign company to give them the capital that they need. Just so the American people know, these are President Obama's words today:
He said, ``But just in case there's still nagging doubts, let me say it as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you'll be able to get your car serviced and repaired just like always. Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been because, starting today, the United States Government will stand behind your warranty.''
So how do you like them apples? Here we have, Mr. Speaker, the United States of America standing up almost like a used car dealer, saying, ``Don't you worry. The United States Government is going to back the car warranty on your car. So go down to the GM. Buy yourself an Impala because the United States Government is going to stand by your 3-year warranty, and if you're really good, maybe it will be a 5-year warranty.''
So here you have the United States Government intervening, not only like the Wall Street Journal said--by lopping off the head of the CEO of General Motors, now called Government Motors--but now we have the Federal Government deciding it's going to be the pitchman, and it's going to back your warranty.
In fact, not only that, but President Obama said, ``We recognize there's a weakness in our economy.'' He said, ``To support demand for car sales in this period, I am directing my team to take several steps. Here is the first one: We're going to take money from the stimulus to purchase government cars as quick as we can for Federal bureaucrats.'' So this is going to give a lot of aid and comfort to the American people in knowing that their bureaucrat is going to be driving a brand new car, purchased at government expense. So their taxes are going to have to go up to buy cars for bureaucrats.
``Number 2: We're going to accelerate our efforts through the Treasury Department.'' Now, I thought the Treasury Department had quite a bit on its plate right now. They're not even able to fill positions in their office, but now they're going to open up a brand new consumer lending department rather than have the car companies', like GM's auto finance. They are gone. The Treasury Department, which is the new investment bank in the United States, is now the new consumer and business lending initiative. Our Treasury Secretary, who, apparently, doesn't have enough to do is now going to be the new loan officer for the cars in the United States, but it gets better.
Third, the IRS, which is now our new friend under President Obama, will be the new marketing arm of the Federal Government because they are going to launch a campaign to alert consumers of a new tax benefit for car purchases made between February 16 and the end of this year. If this doesn't sound like an ad you would see on late night TV: If you buy a car this year, we will deduct the cost of sales and excise taxes. In fact, we think we will sell 100,000 new cars.
Mr. Speaker, Detroit sells millions of cars every year. So we are going to have the Federal Government take over these two car manufacturers so they can sell 100,000 new cars? That would be a bad day for Detroit if that's what they would all sell, but that's not the end of it.
Then the President went on to say today, ``Several Members of Congress have proposed an even more ambitious incentive program to increase car sales while modernizing our fleet.'' That is really going to comfort the American people in knowing that Congress has come up with a plan to sell cars to the American people, and such fleet modernization programs will provide generous credit to consumers who turn in old, less fuel-efficient cars and who purchase cleaner cars.
Again, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, this is so pathetic to think that now Congress is going to come up with a way to sell cars better than the private markets and that we are going to have bureaucrats driving new cars while the American people are limping along in their old cars. They cannot afford to buy cars. This is unbelievable.
I urge the American people to download the President's remarks from today. This has very little to do with the free market. It has everything to do with failed Eastern European industrialized policy. This is not what the American people want. They want their taxes cut. They want jobs in the United States, and they want to be able to have less burdens on their backs from regulations.
I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Perhaps because it is.
If the gentleman would yield, what you're talking about with Pilgrim's Pride, the great chicken producer in your district, that could have been done by our car manufacturers here in the United States without one dime of taxpayer money going into the auto industry.
I sit on the Financial Services Committee. We had the Big Three automakers in front of our committee, and I asked that question when the gentlemen were there. I asked, ``Wouldn't bankruptcy protection be your best friend? It would shield your company from further legal liability, and it would allow you the freedom to restructure your contracts and to restructure your organization.'' That would have been a great tool that would not have cost any money.
Unfortunately, our President has made a decision to take the most expensive and the deepest government intervention route that we have ever seen in the history of our country. My fear, Mr. Speaker, is we will never again see a free car manufacturer, an American-made car manufacturer, in the United States. Is there any industry that thinks, once the government gets its fingers at the level where it approves your business plan and then backs up the warranty of your product and decides what your product will be and who the purchasers of your product will be, that the government will ever get out of the car business? At that point, what are we going to have left to buy--pogo sticks?
We are not going to have much of a car industry left once the United States Government gets done with it. It's kind of like free health care. We will never see more expensive health care than when the Federal Government gets involved.
I thank the gentleman and thank you for this time.
We yield back. Thank you.