Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1253, the Health Insurance Restrictions and Limitations Clarification Act of 2009.

This bill will allow purchasers of health insurance to better understand what they are buying. At its core, this bill is about transparency for the consumer. And that is a good thing.

This bill does not in any way alter current insurance requirements or limitations. This bill merely says that if an insurer wants to restrict or limit benefits, it must inform their enrollee prior to enrollment that it may so restrict or limit benefits.

I wish to commend Congressmen Burgess and Stupak for their work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Burgess of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in proud support of H. Con. Res. 60, sponsored by Representative Granger from the State of Texas. March is National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, and we need to do more and move in a direction that ends societal taboos that are associated with the screening process of a disease that is a threat to many Americans, and especially to those over the age of 50.

This is the second-to-last day for the month of March, but the need for colorectal cancer awareness and education should continue throughout the entire year. Awareness is a leading cause in the annual decline in deaths from colorectal cancer. The survival rate of individuals who have colorectal cancer is 90 percent when detected in the early stages versus only a 10 percent survival rate when colorectal cancer is diagnosed after it has spread to other organs. It is because of successful programs such as National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month that encourage early diagnosis so Americans can lead full and active lives. By supporting the observance of March as Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, we have the opportunity to encourage men and women to educate themselves about the disease and the screening methods that are used.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to recognize Ms. Granger of Texas for as much time as she may consume.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 577, the Vision Care for Kids Act. This bipartisan legislation provides eye examinations and follow-up care for children who have been identified as needing vision care services. This legislation builds on State programs currently in place with a focus on helping low-income children.

Undiagnosed and untreated vision problems can pose learning problems for children. Vision problems can have effects on a child's emotional, educational and physical development.

A majority of children entering school never have received a vision test and, for those who do receive a vision test and do not pass, many do not receive the recommended follow-up care. This legislation will enable more children to receive testing and the follow-up care, if necessary.

We need to continue to work towards a system by which roadblocks to a formative education for our children are eliminated. I stand in support of this legislation, and hope that my colleagues will join in.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Well, I want to first thank my friend from Missouri for yielding and for hosting this hour to talk about the real dangers of this road that we're going down. This is a budget proposal, this budget that we're talking about, especially these record levels of spending, but they are all proposals right now that have been filed by President Obama. Some of these are bills that have not even gone through committee yet but that are going to be going through committee.

I think what is happening and what we are seeing around the country is that the American public, during these tough economic times, is dealing with their problems. Families are cutting back right now. We are seeing that all across the country. People are saving money. They are paying down debt because they know that we are in tough times. We all hope that we get out of these tough times soon, but I think what is concerning people are some of the policy decisions coming out of Washington right now: these proposals by President Obama for these record levels of spending, with record levels of borrowing and of not borrowing from a savings account but borrowing from our children and grandchildren--because this is money we don't have--

coupled with record tax increases. These are not just tax increases on the rich--and I don't think class warfare is a good thing at any time. It is surely not a good thing now, during these tough economic times, to be threatening over $600 billion in new taxes, the bulk of which will fall on the backs of our small business owners--on the people who actually hire and employ 70 percent of the American workforce right now.

$350 billion.

Sixty-five days to be exact.

What you are pointing out is exactly the concern that is going on throughout the country, the fact that, in the 65 days President Obama has been in office, our country has already incurred over $1 trillion in new debt. We keep hearing the word ``inherited'' a lot, and the President tries to imply that every problem that is out there and all of these spending bills are all things that he inherited.

First of all, the porkulus bill, as you call it--the spending bill that added over $1 trillion of new debt, which was his major initiative, his first initiative--actually was something that President Obama decided to do on his own. That added another $1 trillion. His budget that he has filed is a record.

This is a chart here that depicts the budget deficits over the last few years, but then project it forward under President Obama's budget, and you can see the first year of President Obama's budget is a record. It was $1.7 trillion. Just on Friday of last week, the Congressional Budget Office updated the numbers because they recognize now there is even more deficit spending, and they recognize the fact that now there will be over $1.9 trillion of deficit spending just in President Obama's first budget.

This is not a budget President Bush proposed. In fact, President Bush's last budget, as you can see, was somewhere in the $400 billion number, a number I'm not comfortable and, I'm sure, that my friend from Missouri is not comfortable with.

More than tripling the deficit in just 1 year, and this is the latest projection. Now it is $1.9 trillion, roughly, in deficit spending that President Obama's budget has.

Clearly, this is not an inherited number. This is something that he has proposed spending and that we are going to fight. We are actively fighting it right now. I think, if you look across the country, the American people are seeing what these record deficits would mean. When the President says--and he said it again last night--that he wants to cut the deficit in half, I think a lot of people are starting to realize now that what he is saying is kind of a play on words, because he is not talking about cutting the deficit in half from the deficit that he truly inherited. He inherited a $400 billion deficit--again, a number that, I think, is too high.

So, if we agree that that number is too high and the President, himself--and of course, he was a Senator for the last 4 years, and he voted for some of these budgets--agrees that a $400 billion deficit is too high and he wants to cut it in half, then you would think that means he is going to have a $200 billion deficit, but that is not what is happening in his budget.

He actually proposes in his very first year a $1.7 trillion deficit, triple the budget deficit that he ``inherited.'' By his fourth year, he is still over $1 trillion now in deficits. So, clearly, he is not cutting it in half. He has raised the bar the first year to a record- level-high deficit, and still his fourth year is more than double the deficit that he inherited in the first year.

I'll give my friend from Missouri an example. I come from Louisiana. I was born in New Orleans. We've got some of the best restaurants in the world in New Orleans, and that is an undisputed fact, and I'm very proud of that fact, but if I were to decide tomorrow to go out every single night and eat at these world-class restaurants and, let's say, starting tomorrow and for a couple of days that I gained about 40 pounds while eating out and I say I'm going to cut my weight gain in half, after a couple of weeks, I'm down to a 20-pound increase. Well, at that point, I'm still 20 pounds heavier than when I started.

And so what happens is he starts off by raising, by actually going on, instead of an eating binge where you can get some good enjoyment out of the food, he goes on a spending binge spending money that we don't have, that our children and grandchildren who, I am sure, would not approve of this. And, of course, I have got a 2-year-old daughter. Nobody's asked her if she approves of this spending because she is going to have to pay for it. And yet they go on this spending binge in the first year and continue it all the way out through the full 4-year term of President Obama.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that in the first 5\1/2\ years since President Obama took the oath of office, the national debt will double in those 5 years--double from the point that this country started, going back to George Washington through President Bush, all the debt that has been inherited in our country for that entire period of time, over 230 years, President Obama, in just 5\1/2\ years, will double that record level of debt.

As we look at all of these numbers--and, of course, it can become overwhelming. It looks like something that's almost hard to believe when you look at these record levels. But I think all across the country what you're seeing is people really are looking at this level of spending, and it is something that people don't want to stomach. It's something that they don't feel comfortable with. They realize how reckless this level of spending is.

In fact, all across the country right now we're starting to see TEA parties sprouting up. These are things that aren't being even organized. There was one I heard of in Orlando, Florida, the other day. Two housewives got very angry. They got mad. They wanted to channel all their anger that's been going on in Washington and all of the borrowing from our children and grandchildren, and they decided they were just going to put together a protest against all of this spending. Over 3,000 people showed up at this rally. In my district on April 15 in the largest parish in Louisiana they are planning a TEA party.

They are also planning another one in a place called St. Tammany because people are angry about the spending. They want to stop this because the good news is--and as we have been talking about all of this there is a silver lining--and the silver lining is this budget has not passed yet. This budget has been proposed by President Obama, but I think as he's laid it out there, not just Republicans but Democrats, Independents all across the country are speaking up just like we are here tonight on the House floor. People all across the country are speaking up saying, Enough is enough. Stop this runaway spending. And I think that's encouraging because there is an opportunity to slow this train down to regain fiscal responsibility.

It absolutely does not make sense to be doing this in good times or in bad, but especially when we talk about the economic times our country's facing, where unemployment is going up and just exceeded 8 percent nationally.

The estimates that are just starting to come out on the President's cap-and-trade--and he calls it a cap-and-trade bill, but clearly, this is an energy tax, a tax on energy to the tune, according to the President's budget, and this is not our number. This is the numbers that the President gave us. He expects to generate over $640 billion in new revenue through this energy tax, and this is something that's going to be paid for by every American family.

His budget director, Peter Orszag, a year ago when he was working for the Congressional Budget Office actually said this type of plan, this cap-and-trade energy tax, would cost every American family that uses energy roughly $1,200 a month minimum more in their electricity bill. Plus, anything that is produced by energy, any product that's produced by energy, would also increase in cost because this tax would be passed on.

And so, as the judge said, these goods, food, clothes, anything that's shipped by rail, by car, by truck, by ship, all of these goods will be taxed through this energy tax, the cost being passed on to the consumer.

What's more, early estimates in the first year alone, numbers we got from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, showed that we would lose, the United States, would lose over 600,000 jobs that would leave this country. And we talk about the dangers of exporting jobs, losing jobs to foreign countries. Countries like China and India are not be going to be complying with this tax.

I will give you an example of a business, an opportunity, that is delayed right now, a job-creating opportunity in a time when we want to be creating jobs. In south Louisiana, there is a steel mill that a company from North Carolina was going to be building, and they're right now deciding between two sites. One site's in the United States, and it's in south Louisiana right outside of my district, but it's in south Louisiana. The other alternative location is in Brazil. So they're not even looking in the United States if they don't go to this location.

The competition is not Missouri. In fact, the only competition is really the United States Congress is because what this company has said is they want to build this plant in the United States. They want to keep these jobs in the United States. This is a $2 billion investment, and we're not talking about government money. We're not talking about bailouts. It seems like some people in the White House and the leadership in Congress, they only want to give taxpayer money away to people to create jobs.

This is a private company that wants to spend $2 billion of their own money to build this steel plant which would create 700 good, high- paying jobs, and they want to do that here in United States. And they said there's one thing holding them back, and that's the President cap- and-trade plan. If the President's cap-and-trade plan, the energy tax, passes, they will not be able to build that plant in the United States.

Now, that plant will still be built. So people that think that this plant's going to do some damage to the environment, first of all, they don't have science backing them up on that. But if they think that, first of all, they're wrong because that plant will be built, but it's going to be built in Brazil. Those 700 good, high-paying jobs, the $2 billion of private sector investment will all be sent to Brazil. And Brazil's not going to use the same environmental controls, the same safeguards that we would use if that plant was run here.

So that's a real direct example, and that's one example. That's one of countless examples of what the President's cap-and-trade energy tax would do, not only to raise taxes on every American family, as even his own budget director pointed out, but also the direct loss in American jobs that would be shipped overseas if this plan passed. And this isn't something that we're just coming up with. This is something a corporation has said publicly that they want to spend $2 billion to create 700 jobs here in America.

There are a lot of things that we are saying ``yes'' to. We are saying ``yes'' to fiscal responsibility. We're saying ``yes'' to lower taxes. I think people all across the country are saying ``yes'' to that, too, and that's why they're all pointing to Washington, and they're saying, ``no,'' don't continue going down this road of runaway spending, runaway deficit, runaway borrowing from our children and grandchildren.

We can pursue new technologies, as the judge talked about. There are companies right now pursuing technologies for carbon capture and sequestration where they literally would be going into those coal plants and capturing the carbon and storing it, holding on to it so it doesn't go into the air. We're pursuing and continuing to encourage the development of wind power, of nuclear power, of solar power, but all of those technologies combined are what it's going to take to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

If that's our goal, and it should be our goal to increase our production of our own natural resources in this country, but what we've got to be very careful about as we discuss the dangers of this spending proposal and these taxes is what it does to future generations.

And there's one final chart I wanted to show, and that is what President Obama's budget does to raid the Social Security trust fund. This is a promise that was made not only to our senior citizens of today but to our workers of today and our children of tomorrow if they want to expect that Social Security program to be there for them, that they're paying into right now.

The fact, President Obama's budget in the first four years takes over $200 billion a year out of the Social Security trust fund. It actually raids those funds after the first four years of President Obama's term in office. He would raid over $900 billion from the Social Security trust fund alone, and then, of course, he still goes other places. He tries to sell debts to countries like China.

We just saw today--today, something very frightening happened. The markets reacted very negatively to it. They went out and tried to sell debt, as the country does throughout the course of each week. A few times a week the country goes and actually sells debt.

When they went today to sell debt, the number of people that wanted to buy that debt dropped to a low level--dangerously low level--and in fact they had to pull back. And you saw the markets drop dramatically because I think it is a sign. It's a sign that people are very concerned about these runaway deficits and what this is going to do to the value of the dollar down the road. And that's why we've got to be fiscally responsible. We've got to say ``yes'' to fiscal responsibility and stop this out-of-control spending that is going on in Washington.

Thank you. I see our time has about expired, but I think the important note that we're finishing on, and I appreciate your passion because there are so many people that are passionate, and that's what's great about this country, and we can stop this runaway train by continuing to have this debate tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House for an hour. We're going to be talking about the economic situation facing our country and specifically the budget situation.

Just about a month ago, the President right here on this floor laid out some of the proposals for what his budget would represent, and then the next day he laid out the blueprint for that budget. And I think it caught a lot of people around the country by surprise, really caused some great concern by people, especially as it relates to this record level of funding, taxing, and borrowing

And over the last few weeks, you've heard a lot of people laying out those details, just what that spending means, just what those taxes mean in terms of the average cost to American families. The middle class families, not just rich people as was purported, but middle class families will be paying over $3,000 on an energy bill.

And then what I think really frightened the American people was the record level of borrowing that this budget represents, and with over $1.7 trillion in the first year in next year's budget that the President has submitted, over a tripling of the deficit that was, quote, unquote, inherited.

And so, as these record levels of spending and taxes and record levels of borrowing have been laid out, you've heard a chorus of echoes, not just by those of us here in this Chamber who are strongly opposed to that irresponsible spending, to that unprecedented level of taxing that will literally stifle the growth of small businesses and middle class families, but also the borrowing that affects our next generation. This isn't money that we have. This is money that would be borrowed from our children and our grandchildren, saddling them with, on estimates, of over $3,000 of debt just in the President's spending bill, that $800 billion piece of legislation called stimulus, that just in its first few weeks added more than $3,000 of national debt on to the backs of every man, woman and child in this country.

And so with that, I wanted to lay out some of the details of just what the spending means, just what these record deficits mean to the American people, to a budget process, and historically, to lay out where these deficits that the President's budget really stand in relation to history in time because these are things that have not passed yet.

And the American people all across the country, they've had these tea parties that have been sprouting up in States all throughout the Nation and literally hundreds, in some cases thousands, of people are showing up and saying enough is enough, Mr. President and Members of Congress, stop this reckless spending, stop and back away from these tax increase proposals that will stifle middle-class families and our small businesses and don't go and borrow trillions--not hundreds of billions--but trillions of dollars from our families, from our children and our grandchildren who we want to leave a better life to. We don't want to saddle them with trillions of dollars in new debt.

And some of these charts that we're going to show and talk about really illustrate what this means, what these budgets mean because these budget documents that are being debated up here in Congress, they talk about big numbers and they talk about programs. And some of these are government programs that are good, successful programs. Some of these are government programs that should have never been in place in the first place. Some of them are programs that are failing, yet will be getting more money from the Federal Government.

And where is this money coming from? And as people look and ask these tough questions, what they realize is this is money we don't have. This is money that would be borrowed in record numbers, and this chart right here shows real well, leading into this administration taking office just 2 months ago, the fact that the deficit at the end of the current fiscal year will be more than tripled by the President's proposed budget.

This budget in 2010 is the President's proposed budget, over $1.7 trillion, and in fact, on Friday, the Congressional Budget Office came out with revised numbers. And unfortunately, those revised numbers were not good for the President. They surely were not good for the taxpayers of this country. They were not good for our children and grandchildren.

My daughter, Madison, who's 2 years old, will be inheriting more of this debt, thousands of dollars in national debt. Now this deficit that was projected to be $1.7 trillion has risen to $1.9 trillion just in the last few days.

There's no end in sight. What we're saying is: Mr. President, don't go down this road. There is a better way. We need to rein in the spending that is going on here in Washington. We need to look out across the country and see what other people that are dealing with these tough economic times are doing.

Families are cutting back, Mr. Speaker. Families are cutting back to deal with these tough economic times. They're making adjustments in their household budget. They're stretching their dollars. Some people are saving and paying down debt. And at time that we're seeing families making responsible decisions and States dealing with their deficits-- and yes, States are hurting too--but States are making cuts to be responsible.

It seems like here in Washington is the only place where spending is out of

control and people just think there's no end. But there is an end. As people ponder these record deficits that are shown on these charts, one of the things we're going to try to do here in this House, at least, is to let the people's voices be heard and say: Enough is enough.

We've got to stop this out-of-control spending. It hasn't happened yet. These bills have not even been filed yet. Just the outlines. This $1.7 trillion number for next year's deficit hasn't even gone through a committee process yet.

So there's still time to stop this. There's still time to stop this out of control spending. That's what we're going to be talking about tonight.

We're going to show some more charts and we're going to talk some more about the historical and future numbers. First, I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Ohio, a friend of mine who has been talking about this same issue for weeks and months as well, my friend, Mr. Jordan.

Again, I want to thank my friend from Ohio for pointing that out. One of the things you talked about is where all of this spending has gone just in the last few months. We've heard a lot of talk over the past few months--the last 2 months, really, that President Obama has been in office--about all of the problems that have been inherited; that were laid on his doorstep when he became President.

We've got to be very careful at paying attention to the facts and looking at in fact how we did get here today, now that we are in March. This isn't something that started before January 20 when the President took the oath of office.

We've got a chart right here that actually shows some of the spending that my friend from Ohio was talking about. When we go into this stimulus bill, as it was called, a stimulus bill that spent $787 billion in today's dollars, the Congressional Budget Office expects that with interest and debt service it will end up costing over $1.2 trillion in deficit spending--money we did not have.

This bill was a bill that President Obama himself filed--not a bill, in our opinion, that will help get the economy back on track. It was a bill that did some spending on some infrastructure issues. Less than 10 percent of that bill in fact was spending on infrastructure.

The vast majority of that bill was spending on government--growing the size of government, both Federal Government and State governments, and actually adding employees not to the private sector, which is what many of us want to see. When we talk about stimulus, we think about how we help those small businesses get that loan to go out and use their entrepreneurial spirit to create jobs in the private sector, to put people to work, to give people the opportunity for a lifelong career, not creating more jobs in government, growing the size of a government that's already too big.

In fact, that's what that stimulus bill did. It added over $1 trillion. And you see a spike in spending there. And then immediately right after that, less than a week, a bill that got little notice because it happened right after the President's spending bill, which he dubbed the stimulus bill, was this omnibus spending bill--over $400 billion, a bill that grew the size of government by 8 percent in 1 week. In 1 week.

Over $400 billion coming on the heels in February of that stimulus bill. And you see the spike that it created in spending. None of this was spending that the President inherited. This was all spending that he created on his own. In fact, we just found out--we're going to continue for months, unfortunately, finding out some of the things that were in that bill because that so-called stimulus bill was over 1,000 pages long. Again, over $1 trillion in actual spending.

That bill was filed on a Thursday night. That final bill that was voted on in the House on a Friday, it was filed at 11 p.m. on a Thursday night. Nobody on the Democratic side, even those who were actually on the conference committee, had the opportunity to read it.

And now we are starting to find out some of the things that were in that bill--not things that help stimulate our economy to get our economy back on track. In fact, just last week we found out as the country was outraged, rightfully so, finding out that executives from AIG were receiving bonuses--over $160 million in bonuses--from Federal money that they got from that financial bailout, which many of us here opposed.

But we found out that they got that money under the authority of language that was put in the President's stimulus bill. That's right. The stimulus bill that this President signed in February actually contained language that was inserted by dark of night. No one wants to take credit for it. But we know now Senator Chris Dodd, the Democrat chairman of the Banking Committee, was instructed by White House officials to put language in the President's stimulus bill protecting the ability of AIG to give out bonuses. That was in that stimulus bill.

Who knows what else is in there because we continue to find out more of the damaging repercussions from that bill. Yet, that bill gave us over $800 billion of immediate increased national debt. Over $3,000 for every man, woman, and child came from that stimulus bill in new deficit spending.

Again, another chart that displays just how high these record deficits are, because when you start talking about numbers and billions of dollars become hundreds of billions and then it becomes trillions of dollars, as we're talking now, sometimes it's hard for people to grasp numbers when you get into that range because it's just numbers that this country has never seen

before. These are unprecedented amounts of spending.

Yet, when you talk about a $400 billion deficit, which occurred in 2004 and, as can you see, there was a trend downward. Those deficits were actually decreasing under President Bush. Still, spending that many here are not comfortable with and would not have liked to see continue.

I am a cosponsor of a bill to balance the Federal budget. We should have a balanced budget in Washington. Unfortunately, we don't. But at least there was a trend downward to reduce the size of those deficits. Then, here comes the President's budget. Files it. Over $1.7 trillion in deficit spending. You see this massive spike. Largest deficit in the history of our country. That comes off the back of the President making the quote, ``We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences.''

President Obama said that right here on this House floor on February 23. ``We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences.'' Then, the next day he filed a bill, his budget outline, that actually adds a $1.7 trillion addition to our national debt in 1 year.

So, ultimately what people are more concerned about is the actual deeds. Not as much the words, but the actions. The actions are scaring a lot of people in terms of these record levels of spending.

With that, we've got a friend of ours from Louisiana, a new Member, somebody who has been passionate in this cause of controlling deficit spending, getting a hold of runaway spending in Washington, Dr. Fleming.

If I can reclaim my time. I sure don't want to discourage you. There is a Chinese proverb: May you live in interesting times. And we are definitely living in interesting times.

I think the good news is, this is the best time for people with the focus that you have got, as a new member, somebody coming here to try to rein in out-of-control spending, this is the exact time to be here because this is the time where speaking up can stop this train, this train of runaway spending, as this bill that has been proposed has not passed into law yet.

The public is starting to have the same level of discomfort that those of us here tonight have, and I think the opportunity for us to galvanize that energy that is going on all around the country as we talk about these tea parties that people are having spontaneously to protest about this record level of spending and borrowing and taxing. We have got the ability to stop this from happening, because some of this has happened, as we have pointed out, but the worst has not yet happened. But if nothing changes, then it will happen. And that is where we have an opportunity. And I know my friend from Ohio has something to add, and then we have other people to join us.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Ohio. And what you talked about, we definitely are going to cover in detail later on throughout this hour tonight on both the historical side, as my friend from North Louisiana talked about even going back to World War II and some of the flaws of the spending that was encountered during the New Deal leading up to World War II, but also on today's proposal, that proposal that you will be looking at in the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we want to point out on this tax proposal, because when the President talked throughout the campaign, when he talked here on the House floor just a few weeks ago, one of the things he said was 95 percent of the American people will not see their taxes raised by a dime. And while he may have been technically accurate in that statement, what many people are finding out now by the cap-and- trade, what many of us call an energy tax or a cap-and-tax proposal, those American families that are making in the bottom 95 percent, so to speak, in this country, they won't be seeing a dime increase, they will be seeing over $3,000 a year in tax increases in the form of higher energy bills, and that is this proposal that is in the President's budget, $1.4 trillion in new taxes.

Some of this falls on the people making over $250,000. Here, we are playing class warfare, something that I don't agree with because it is not good policy. But this right here, the small business and investor's tax, generates $630 billion. This is what the President talks about when he says for those people who are in the top 5 percent of income earners, people making over $250,000, will see a tax increase. What he is talking about is a $636 billion tax increase, half of which will fall on the backs of small business owners in this country. The people that actually employ more than 70 percent of the American workforce will be seeing a tax increase.

Now, anybody that can explain how that is good fiscal policy, especially during tough economic times, the floor is open for them to discuss it, because no one has yet to come and explain that. This is a horrible proposal. But on top of that, what they have also proposed is this cap-and-trade tax, and it is $640 billion. That hasn't been talked about much by the President in terms of its impact, but what this tax means, in fact the budget director for the President just 1 year ago when he was working for the Congressional Budget Office said that this would mean over $1,600 a year in new taxes that people would pay on their electricity bills.

So I guess what he means when you are not going to pay another dime, $1,300 to $1,600 a year in new energy taxes is not a dime, but it something that would break many families in this country. But it would fall on the backs of every family in this country. No family under the current proposal is exempted. So a married couple making $30,000 a year with two kids will be paying about $1,300 a year more in energy costs from the President's own budget.

This is bad policy. This is policy that we are going to fight. We are going to fight it in committee. It hopefully will not get to this House floor, but we will fight it on this floor. And one of the people that will be fighting that battle with us is our good friend from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Thank you. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate what the gentleman from Georgia talked about, because that is, in fact, the reason that we are here tonight. It is not that we are willing to throw in the towel, take this and just accept this train to run down the track. What we are trying to do is talk about this problem and not just lay out the proposals that are here before us, but the implications of those proposals, to families all across this country. In fact, these proposals fly in the face of the decisions that families across this country are making themselves. As they deal with tough economic times, people are actually acting in a responsible way. They are cutting back their spending. They are setting money aside and paying down debt. But they are sure not going deeper into debt. If you have got a high credit card balance, the last thing you do is go order two more credit cards and then run up the balance on those.

That is what the President's proposal in his budget does. It, in fact, triples the current year level of deficit spending. I want to make this point again as we talk about the history revisionism that is going on as people talk about what they inherited. There was a deficit that President Obama inherited. The problem is that he is tripling that deficit in his first budget out the box. He is tripling that level of spending in a way that is irresponsible. He even acknowledges, as he is doing it, that deficit spending is irresponsible. And anybody is free to go back in time and criticize people in the past who helped create this national debt that we have. I have surely done it. Many others have done it. But when you criticize something, you don't replace the thing that you're criticizing by doing it two or three times even worse.

So, if he is going to stand with us and criticize the deficit spending, then he needs to actually stand with us and start cutting this Federal budget, not tripling, tripling the size of this debt, the national deficit that we are going to be facing next year. And so that is what we are talking about tonight is what we are going to be fighting in the coming months.

One of the people at the forefront of that fight is my friend on the Budget Committee, Mr. Jordan from Ohio.

I think when people look to Washington, they are looking for leadership. They are not looking for just more checks thrown around or cash thrown around to States or to people. What they want to see is policies, good sound policies to respond to the things that are happening across the country. I think people are very

concerned. We are finally starting to see people speak up and not just complain at home or sit on their couch. They are literally standing up and going to these tea parties that they are having all across the country now. In fact on April 15, the day that many of us dread, the day that we pay our taxes, that is the day that many of these tea parties are going to be held throughout the country where people are in essence revolting against this record level of spending, this record level of borrowing, deficit spending and taking money that we don't have from our kids and grandkids to run up these massive deficits each year under the President's budget.

They are doing it because they know that this hasn't happened yet. They are proposals by this President. But this is a President like any, and this is a Congress like any, that needs to respond to what people are saying across this country. And so while we are speaking on this floor tonight talking about the dangers of deficit spending and record borrowing and these taxes that are being proposed, and we are trying to stop this from happening, people across the country are doing the same thing.

I think my friend here is going to chime in as well and talk about this.

I thank my friend from Tennessee for talking about the challenges as people look at what is happening up here in Washington and they are dealing with tough economic times back home. And this isn't something that families and States are new to. It seems like budgets are cyclical, sometimes you're up, sometimes you're down. But ultimately, you have to live within your means. And families are doing exactly that. Then they are looking at Washington and they are seeing what's happening up there when in just 2 months of a new administration where people were promised change, where a President stood here on this House floor just a few weeks ago and said, ``We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences.'' And I think we all agree with those statements. But the problem is people then look, and the next day, the very next day after the President made those statements, he files a bill that spends and borrows at record levels, $1.7 trillion in borrowing and $1.4 trillion in new taxes. Many of those new taxes will fall on the backs of middle class families and small businesses.

People are saying, ``Wait a minute, that wasn't the change we were told about.'' If they made less than $250,000, they surely didn't think they were going to see a dime of new taxes. And then they see that bill, the President's cap-and-trade bill, that actually adds roughly $1,300 just in energy costs. The estimates are that it will be more than $3,000 per family--not people making over $250,000, but a middle class family or a family making maybe $20,000 a year will see roughly $3,000 when you count up your higher energy bill, your higher gas bill at the pump and when you go and pay for products that use energy, like food. Any food product you use there is energy, transportation, related to that. So people look at all of this combined and they say, ``this doesn't add up to the things that I was hearing and that I was excited about.'' And so they are speaking up.

What is important is that people are not just going to sit back and let this happen. We are not going to sit back and let this happen.

I'll yield back to my friend.

Reclaiming my time.

One other thing that was not brought up yet but a bill that was just filed about a week and a half ago that the President said that he supports is this bill called the Employee Free Choice Act, which has just perplexed the business community throughout this country. Small businesses are literally shaking at the thought that their employee workforce and employees across this country--we have already started hearing from employees who are very angered and disappointed that Democrats in Congress would take away their right to a secret ballot vote when it comes to deciding whether or not they want to form a union. And yet that is now part of the President's agenda, an agenda item that is estimated to cost this economy in our country over 600,000 jobs in the first year in a tough economic time when we need to be creating jobs. The bill that they are filing could actually cost, run jobs out of this country to the tune of about 600,000 a year.

I yield to my friend from Georgia.

Employees Free Choice Act, which it is not.

Well, reclaiming my time, one of the things that you talked about, you know, as you talk about the concern that your business people in Georgia have, I have heard the same thing from not just employers but from employees, workers in South Louisiana, who are very concerned that their ability to, their right to a secret ballot would be taken away. In fact, while it is called the Employee Free Choice Act, myself and others call it the Secret Ballot Elimination Act, because all of us in Congress, the President, even the leadership on the Democratic side, we are all elected by secret ballot. There is a secret ballot right that people have, and part of the reason for that is it protects employees from coercion and intimidation and those kind of threats that have happened throughout our history. And that is the reason that that is in place. And that a bill would be filed as part of the President's agenda that would take away somebody's right to a secret ballot, something that is at the heart of any democracy, I think, is offensive. And it shows people which road they are going down, that while we have got problems with our economy and we need to be focused on creating jobs, they see what this administration is really focused on. Taxing people's energy bills, taxing small businesses for the work that they do, that hurts their ability to go out and create more jobs to hire people in this country. And then passing legislation that would actually take away somebody's secret ballot, it is something that has gotten people's attention. They are seeing what these deficits will do to our future, our children and our grandchildren, and people are starting to speak up. And I am glad somebody else that is going to be speaking up is my friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Well, I thank my friend from Texas. And you know, coming from Louisiana, right after Katrina, with all of the failures of government, from the Federal Government to the State government to the local government, it was our charities, it was our faith-based organizations that were the first ones in and consistently delivered so much relief and, in fact, are still in the New Orleans area today helping people rebuild, helping families get back into homes. It is those charitable organizations that don't get anything from government in most cases. And they just do it out of the goodness of their own heart and the divine providence from the Lord. And the fact that this President's budget takes away people's ability to deduct those charitable donations, clearly threatens a lot of those organizations themselves.

And I know our time is limited. One thing we wanted to touch on as we have talked about the spending and the borrowing and the taxing, where is this money coming from?

We had actually done some research on the President's budget. And in the first 4 years, in President Obama's first 4 years in office, and I am sure that the limits on the elections will dictate if there is going to be another four, but I think as people look at this and they get more concerned, where is this money coming from? Who are we borrowing this from? This isn't money we have.

The first place the President is going in his budget is raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. And senior citizens out there who, justifiably, are dependent on that fixed income from Social Security, and future generations who want to expect something from Social Security, are very alarmed to see that in the first 4 years, the President takes over $900 billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund. And so, record levels, again, of not just borrowing, not just record levels of taxes, but record levels, never before in the history of our country have we seen nearly $1 trillion taken out of the Social Security Trust Fund in just 4 years.

And so, as we see the record levels of spending, and people can even look at this budget and they might find items in the budget, not in the baseline budget, but new levels of spending that they might like and think sound good. But

then as they compare that against where this is coming from, is it worth adding to the Federal budget to take from Social Security, to take from our children and grandchildren, to tax small businesses and to tax every family on their energy bill? These are the questions that Americans are pondering. These are the questions we are fighting.

And I will finish with my friend from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

I thank my friend from Georgia. And that is why, we are living in challenging times, but that is why we are proposing alternatives. As we have talked about the problems of this budget, we have good alternatives we will be talking about more throughout the course of this year.

And I thank the Speaker for allowing us this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am angered. The American people are angered. But they are not just angered by what is going on with these bonuses at AIG, they are also angered at what is going on right here in Washington, DC, and in this Capitol by people who helped create this mess.

For those of us who voted against the bailout and who voted against the stimulus bill, we are equally angered not just at the bonuses, but also at the fact that this language was inserted into the stimulus bill.

Senator Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee himself said this language, protecting AIG bonuses, was put in the bill because of a request from the White House.

We deserve to know who at the White House knew about that, who at the White House asked for this language to be put in protecting AIG bonuses. And now that people are rightly angered across the country, they are trying to cover themselves with this language in this resolution which is part of this coverup.

If Secretary Geithner knew that this language was going to be inserted and he helped direct it in there, he needs to resign. But the President needs to answer these questions to the American people who are rightfully angered about what is happening.

I want to thank my friend from Missouri. I think what you have been showing really is something that people around the country have been seeing for the last 2 months. They have realized what this change really means in terms of policy because ultimately what the markets are reacting to, what people are reacting to when they are at the water coolers is not just the rhetoric because the rhetoric during the campaign sounded really good. It was hard to disagree with people saying we need to be fiscally responsible.

But when somebody says we need to be fiscally responsible, which I agree with, and then they present a budget which is $1.7 trillion out of balance, the largest deficit in our country's history, not just spending at record levels, dangerously record levels, but also adding $1.4 billion in new taxes, I think that is at the point where people said, Wait a minute, this wasn't the change that I envisioned. This wasn't what I was promised.

The American people were told that 95 percent of the people in this country won't pay a dime in new taxes. And then they see this energy tax, this cap-and-tax proposal by the President, which literally would increase the taxes that people pay on their electricity bills. Anybody and everybody in this country who has an electricity bill will see at least a $1,300 a year, and the newest reports that are just coming out as they are factoring more of these changes, this budget that just got filed, the revised estimates are showing over $3,000 per family in America in new energy taxes.

When people see this, they are saying, Wait a minute, that's not what you told me. That wasn't the change I was envisioning when you told me only the top 5 percent, people making over $250,000 would pay more. Not that it is a good thing to play class warfare, and I think that is the danger of class warfare that we are seeing. And your charts reflect what is happening because the markets continue to drop each time more of these proposals come out.

We have been having hearings now in committee for the last 3 weeks on this energy tax proposal, and not only will every American in the country see now roughly a $3,000 increase per year once this is effective; and, hopefully, it will not be effective. This bill still hasn't passed. These bills just got filed 2 weeks ago, and the American public is starting to digest it.

I think the AIG scandal that just erupted in the last few days shows people what the fine print really means. When that stimulus bill that the President said that we needed to rush through, didn't want to give anybody in Congress a chance to read the fine print, those of us who voted against it, and I know everybody talking tonight, the reason we are here tonight is because we opposed those bad policies because we knew it was bad policy, not because we want to be against or for.

As we complete the thought that we've been talking about, these were all things that didn't just happen by accident. This was in legislation. We are not talking about the previous administration. The word ``inherited'' seems to be thrown around a lot here. The same people that support the death tax seem to be trying to say they inherited every problem that exists. And there sure is blame to go around from people in years past, but we don't have time to talk about the past. What we do have time to talk about is what is happening today.

In the stimulus bill that everyone here tonight is talking about, these problems and the ramifications throughout the country, throughout our economy, with what is happening with these policies, this was in legislation that was passed by this President. Just 3 weeks ago, he signed that stimulus bill that he himself pushed through Congress, said it had to be pushed through at record speed, didn't want to have the accountability and the oversight. And so Congress literally, in 2 weeks, spent a record amount, $800 billion, that we all voted against because we knew it was bad policy. But the President said we need to act soon, and this is all critical to getting our economy back on track. I mean, look at the details.

Yes.

Reclaiming my time, and what you're talking about is something that we are already starting to see; it's problems that happened in the 1930s during the Great Depression. And unfortunately, it seems like history is repeating itself because we are seeing that, now that countries are saying we're concerned about this level of debt that America is going into, families across this country are concerned about this level of debt.

It seems like, in Washington, that this liberal leadership is the only group that wants to go on this wild spending spree. The good news is it hasn't all happened yet. Some of it has. That $800 billion stimulus bill that we talked about that didn't do anything to stimulate our economy that President Obama signed, that bill that had the language that protected AIG's bonuses that we're all outraged about-- and it is kind of ironic when you see those people feigning their anger and saying those people are getting these bonuses, $160 million--that I agree is offensive; the problem is, they put the language in. This President signed that bill that protected those bonuses.

The record is clear. You can go back and look at it. And I think my friend from Missouri actually pointed out the chronology of how that got thrown in, airdropped in in that final report.

I yield back.

Well, I want to thank my friend from Texas for hosting this and really helping unravel the mess, as Americans all across the country are very frustrated, they are angry about what's happening with our economy, they are angry when they read about what happened with AIG. And then I think they get cynical when they see some of the very people who helped create this mess going on all of these talk shows over the weekend, pointing their fingers everywhere else other than themselves and saying it was this administration or that administration.

You can find more than enough blame to go around, but if you really go back to the root--and I think you've started to touch on it--the problems that existed with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, going back to the Community Reinvestment Act, going back to the 1990s when a gentleman who represented part of my State from Louisiana, Richard Baker from Baton Rouge, who actually sat on the Financial Services Committee, he had the guts to go and take on Fannie and Freddie back in the 1990s, and he exposed all of this. And this is all out there on the Internet, it's information you can actually go and verify. You can look at those hearings--and many Americans already have. And for those who haven't, it would be a really good history lesson to go back and look at those hearings that he had as he was calling on the government to finally reform these institutions who were being encouraged--not by some bank on Wall Street, not by George W. Bush, this goes back to the Clinton administration--but it was people in Congress, some people who are right now chairmen of these very committees that have oversight, and he was fighting and saying we have got to reform Fannie and Freddie because this entire situation is going to melt down.

We've got institutions that are encouraging people, using the strength of the Federal Government, encouraging people to give out loans to people who don't have the ability to pay. And Members of Congress who are in leadership positions today were giving edicts to Fannie and Freddie saying go out and give those loans to people who don't have any ability to pay, when people all across our country-- people in my district, your district--people who are playing by the rules today go out and want to get a home mortgage, they have to prove their ability to pay, they have to prove that they've got equity, they have to put up maybe 20 percent, they've got to fill out a bunch of forms. And ultimately they make their payments. Over 90 percent of the people in this country, even in these tough

economic times today, are making their payments on their mortgage. Yet, you have a small group of people--some who actually lied on their application, but some who were encouraged by the Federal Government to get loans that they didn't have the ability to pay by these institutions, Fannie and Freddie. And people like Richard Baker, back in the 1990s, were saying we've got to reform this corrupt system. And yet, some of the very people who are now yelling at the top of their lungs at the top of this Capitol saying, blame this guy and blame that guy, they were there defending Fannie and Freddie. And it's all out there on the Internet, you can actually go and see it.

And yet, when you look at what happened with AIG just 2 weeks ago-- and of course, again, you've got the record to go and check it-- President Obama's spokesperson was asked about the next $30 billion that the Federal Government released to AIG. And they said, what do you think about the money that AIG has already gotten so far, the $150 billion they had already gotten; they said, do you think that that money has been spent properly? And the White House actually said yes. They said, yes, we think AIG has done good things with the money.

Now, clearly AIG has not. AIG has been caught giving bonuses, hundreds of millions of dollars--up to $6.5 million for some executives--in bonuses with taxpayer money. And some of those very same people are yelling and screaming at the top of their lungs. And we are all outraged, but Americans that are outraged are looking at this and they are getting very cynical because they are saying, wait a minute, we can actually go back and unravel this, we can look and see some of these same people. And those of us who voted against the financial bailout last year because we knew this was the wrong approach, we knew giving taxpayer money to help these financial groups on Wall Street who made irresponsible decisions, we knew that was bad public policy, but yet some of those very same people who voted to give the money are now yelling about how the money is being spent, even though they allowed the money to be spent that way. It was a wrong approach then. We should have never done it. We're seeing how flawed that system is now. But I think people across the country, they do get it. They are seeing what's happening out there and they are realizing that some of these very same people that are yelling at the top of their lungs and expressing outrage were the ones who actually voted to give that taxpayer money away.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House and talk about the economic crisis that our country is facing and also to go through and walk through some of the things that got us here, because as you talk to Americans all around the country, they are frustrated. They realize the problems that we are facing in our economy. But then they start to see a lot of these proposals that are coming out of Washington, and they don't see how any of these relate to the problems that we are facing today and how they are going to get our economy and our country back on track.

I have got to say that there are a lot of us here that share that same frustration and share that same feeling that Washington still doesn't get the message of what is happening out there in the country and what it is going to take to get the economy back on track.

I think what really underscored it in the last few weeks was when the President released his budget, which really shows the first outline of which direction President Obama wants to take our country and how he plans on dealing with these problems that our country faces. I think what most people have now realized is that the President's budget spends too much money. It taxes too much, and it leaves too much debt behind for our children and grandchildren.

Really, if you look at that in a theme, it really underscores how it misses the point of what is happening out there in the country, the fact that people all across the Nation are tightening their belts. They realize that there are tough economic times out there, and they are dealing with it in each individual family. You hear a lot about the problems with the banking industry. And we will talk a little bit about the banking industry and really how that problem still has not been addressed by this President or by his budget director or by his Treasury Secretary and the fact that a lot of the problems facing our economy still go back to a tightened credit market and a failure in the banking system that we can address and there are ways to address it. And we will talk about that too.

But unfortunately, rather than focusing on those areas, those very narrow areas that can get our economy back on track and get small businesses creating jobs again--the ability is there for us to do that--unfortunately, the budget that the President submitted goes in the opposite direction. At that point, a lot of us who really care about this country and really feel that we have got to make sure we chart the right course have been standing up and saying that there is a better way to do this.

Some people might want to just criticize people who don't just go along and blindly vote ``yes.'' And we have seen so many bad policies coming from people who are just blindly voting for the next thing that is laid on this floor here in the House of Representatives. Yet, there is no accountability and there are no actual benchmarks to get us to where we need to be. There is a better way. And people know this is the greatest country, with all of our flaws, the greatest country in the history of the world. And we know we can get to a better place. Yet, as we stand here tonight, we wonder why we do this. Why do we fight to make this a better country? A lot of it is because we want to leave behind a better place than we have today.

Tonight is a special night because tonight is my daughter's second birthday. I'm here in Washington, and unfortunately, I cannot be with her, and I want to say ``happy birthday'' to Madison. But I want to be here to fight to make it a better country so that my daughter, and everybody else's daughter and son, has a better place, that they can still pursue that American Dream, that dream that makes people come here from all across the world, that they would give up everything to go beneath the Statute of Liberty and look up and see what that represents.

That vision of America is still out there. And it is still in the hearts of people all across this country. But I think for too many people, they don't see that same vision, that same spirit here in this Chamber dealing with these problems. We have been here for 3 days now as we have come back from the break, and all that has been brought up by the Speaker has been votes on post offices and ceremonial resolutions. People want us to be here dealing with these tough issues. People want us to be here tonight, late at night and going into the midnight hour dealing with these tough issues, because they know we can get through this. And they know there is a better way. And that is what we are going to be talking about tonight.

We have some other people that are going to talk with us. But first, I want to talk about some other parts of the President's budget that have caused so much concern for people across the country. I want to talk about how much money it spends. This budget gives a record deficit of $1.7 trillion in deficit spending this year. It is an amount that is unseen in past budgets, an amount that none of us think is a tolerable level. This is all money we don't have, money that will be left to our children and grandchildren to have to pay off. But if they also look-- and this is what is sending shock waves throughout the rest of this country now--as people start to read the fine print, they are looking at these tax increases. These are tax increases that President Obama submitted in his own budget. And if you look here, he is projecting to raise $1.4 trillion in new taxes at a time when our economy is in such disarray. We are in a recession, possibly heading toward a depression, because of some of the decisions being made here. We have got the ability to stop that from happening. But you surely don't fix tough economic times by adding $1.4 trillion in new taxes on to the backs of hardworking people, small businesses.

Look at these tax increases, $636 billion would fall on to the backs of small businesses in our country, the people

who create 70 percent of the jobs in our country. Then look at the cap- and-trade legislation. This is a tax on energy. There is actually an energy tax in the President's budget. And while he said here on this floor just a few weeks ago that 95 percent of the people in this country would not be paying a dime in new taxes, what they failed to mention was the next day when he submitted his budget, he had a $646 billion energy tax which is paid for not by those rich people in the top 2 percent, but paid for by every family out there who actually uses energy. And that is going to be roughly a $1,300 tax on everybody who uses power.

So we have laid out a little bit of a framework of what is in this President's budget, what causes us concern and how there is a better way. With that I want to introduce my friend from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) to also share some of his thoughts on this.

Reclaiming my time. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for talking on that point about that cap-and-trade tax. And interestingly, about 1 year ago, Peter Orszag was the head of the Office of Management and Budget. He is actually now the President's budget director. The person who today is the President's budget director said that this tax, this energy tax, while decreasing emissions would also impose costs on the economy. Much of those costs will be passed along to the consumers in the form of higher prices for energy and energy-intensive goods.

So what the President's own budget director said was, this energy tax that he has proposed in his budget will actually increase the cost of energy for every American family in this country. But it also will increase the cost of every energy-intensive good, meaning any time you go to fill up your tank at the gas station, you're going to be paying more in energy taxes. Any time you go and buy goods at the grocery store you will pay more because those products you buy, the food you buy, the can of soup you buy, they are trucked in from somewhere or it was shipped in on rail. All of those have costs. And those costs, as the President's budget director said, will be passed on to the consumer.

In fact, we have got estimates that right here, according to an analysis by MIT researchers, the total energy bill for the average American household will increase by up to $3,128 per year based on Congressional Budget Office testimony. So this energy tax right here, this $646 billion that is in the President's budget, we are not talking about some bill that somebody filed that is never going to see the light of day. This has already been filed just 2 weeks ago in the President's budget, a day after he said here on this House floor that no American family that makes less than $250,000 will pay a dime. And the key was a dime. And I guess he was right. He won't pay a dime. According to the Congressional Budget Office, you will pay $3,128 in new energy taxes.

And all of this is coming at a time when our economy is in such a troubled period. We are in a recession. We are trying to get out. And you surely don't get out by throwing $1.4 trillion of new taxes on to the backs of every small business and every consumer of energy, every family in America. We especially want to talk about freeing up these credit markets and getting our banking system working, because that is the problem that got us here in the first place. Some people want to say that there are no alternatives on the table, and there is one way, or ``my way or the highway,'' and it is just their approach or nobody else's. And

maybe they don't want to listen to other opinions. And that is unfortunate.

We live in a democracy, and that means that we exchange ideas and not everybody has a monopoly on great ideas. In fact, with 435 people in this body, you will get some good ideas, and some bad ideas too. I think some of them we have just talked about. But there are good ideas on the table.

One idea still on the table, going back to the first financial bailout, H.R. 7223, this is a bill that was filed, almost a hundred- page bill. I was a cosponsor of this bill. This was our alternative bill to the first financial bailout, about 6 months ago, when that first $700 billion bailout passed which many of us said was the wrong approach to fixing the financial crisis in our country. There was definitely a financial crisis. There still is a financial crisis.

The problem is now the taxpayers are on the hook for $700 billion because the approach they used was to just throw taxpayer money at the problem and not go to the root and say why are banks not lending to banks? Why is it that people who have good credit ratings are having trouble getting loans?

So what we did was we put an alternative on the table. It is kind of an interesting point now that we look at the problems going on with AIG and the fact that we see these egregious bonuses being paid to people, who in many cases were people who ran their company into the ground. The folks over at AIG who were getting $165 million in bonuses, they actually got $173 billion in taxpayer-funded bailouts from that financial bailout. In fact, they were the very people, many of these, who ran that company into the ground.

So why is that a bad approach? I think the American public that is looking at this knows it is a bad approach. They are offended that their tax dollars, their hard-earned tax dollars and money that we don't have, money that our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay, are going to give executives of a failed company up to $6.5 million each in bonuses during these tough times.

So this bill that we filed that is still out there, this is still a solid alternative that I would suggest would help address and fix our economic problems, H.R. 7223, from the 110th Congress.

What it did basically was set up a workout, not a bailout. It allowed and made these companies who ran their companies into the groundwork, actually go and work themselves out by going in and establishing a price for mortgage-backed securities, which is the problem which started all of this. A lot of the problems with subprime mortgages and then Fannie and Freddie giving loans to people who didn't have the ability to pay, all those things that still have not been reformed that need to be reformed, this bill actually addressed that problem, but it went one step further.

My friend from Georgia talked about the mark-to-market accounting rule. Our bill addresses that and suspends it. There is a rule out there, it is a financial accounting rule, that many bank executives will tell you is currently forcing a lot of these mortgaged-backed securities to be valued at zero dollars, even though they have some value. Nobody knows what the value is today. But because the value is unknown, they have to literally mark them down to almost zero which means they have no ability to loan to anybody. By suspending that accounting rule alone, you would free up liquidity in the markets.

One other change we were going to make that still is on the table today, it is still in this proposal and it is called repatriation.

Back in 2005, Congress actually for 1 year lowered the capital gains rates for U.S. companies who have foreign profits. Believe it or not, there are still U.S. companies that are making profits. And some of them work and have businesses in other countries. Unfortunately, not enough of them bring those profits back to America to help the American economy. They leave them in foreign countries because they are taxed. Today, they are taxed on bringing that money back.

For 1 year they tried suspending that tax. They lowered it from 35 percent down to 5 percent. You know what happened, $300 billion of money came into our economy because those U.S. companies said we want to bring that money back and help the U.S. economy because the Federal Government is not going to tax us at such a high rate.

That worked so well, you know what happened when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, they revoked that law. So the tax went back up, and you know what happened. Because the tax went up, those profits from those U.S. companies went back overseas. And they are still sitting in foreign banks helping foreign countries. But they could be here helping our country. Not taxpayer money, $300 billion by that one change could be here helping our country get back on track.

These are just a few examples of what is in the alternative bill that was filed over 6 months ago that is still an alternative and we still offer up to the President. If President Obama really wants to get serious about addressing the banking problem, this is one way to go, to not put taxpayers on the hook, but actually use the markets and use the people that created this mess, and then use some smart changes that have been proven over time to put real liquidity back in the marketplace.

I am joined by one of our bright new shining stars, a freshman Member from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz.

I appreciate the passion and the examples that my friend from Utah gives of real people out there in this country and the things that they are dealing with. And, of course, the way that they deal with it is a lot different than unfortunately the way it is not being dealt with here in Washington. And especially when we know there are proven ways to address these problems.

A lot of us kind of get a little irritated when we hear people complaining that the Republicans were in power and they did this and that so that makes it okay to do what they are doing today.

If we talk about spending, and let's talk about the spending that has gone on. There is a lot of blame that can go around. I sure don't support the deficit spending that has been going on, but what we are seeing today, the deficit spending we are seeing today is historic. It is record levels. While some of our friends may want to criticize spending that had been done in the past, the spending that is going on today makes people in the past look like amateurs on spending. It is levels we have never seen before.

Here is a chart that shows deficits over the last 4 years, and it is $400 billion, trickling down below $200 billion in 2007, definitely going in the right direction. We want to have surpluses and we want to run a balanced budget. I am a cosponsor of a bill to balance the Federal budget. We should require a balanced budget, but at least the direction was trending downward. And then we see the 2010 budget that was just submitted goes to $1.7 trillion in deficit spending in 1 year alone. And those record numbers continue on for years. In fact, the first 4 years of the President's budget would be over a 50 percent increase in the national debt.

In those 4 years combined with every budget since President George Washington, so if you take George Washington and go through President Bush, and in just 4 years, President Obama will add 50 percent to the national debt because of this level of spending. This is again money our children and our grandchildren will have to inherit. In fact, the budget, that spending bill, and some people called it a stimulus bill that passed just a few weeks ago, the $800 billion spending bill that ended up spending billions of dollars on a high-speed rail from California to Las Vegas, and research for a field mouse, and massive growth of government, that one bill alone added over $3,000 in new national debt, $3,000 for every man, woman and child in this country.

People say what did my State get for it? What is my community going to get for it? I think as they look, they will realize over the next few months, as they see more of these egregious spending programs that came out of that bill, they are going to realize that they didn't get $3,000 worth out of that bill.

That is why when we talk about the entrepreneurial spirit, and I think my friend from Texas has some good insights on that, and great entrepreneurs and the fact that government can encourage a way out of this problem, but government spending cannot solve this problem. We can look back to the Great Depression, and we will talk about that and the mistakes made during the Great Depression.

If I can reclaim my time for a moment, and then I will yield back to my friend from Texas. What you're talking about right here in 2008, and this is when the Democratic-controlled Congress ramped up that spending. But even here, it is below $600 billion. And then in the first year of President Obama's budget, it goes up to $1.7 trillion in deficits. This isn't the size of the budget--the budget is over $3.5 trillion--this is just the size of the deficit. And then if you look, by the fourth year of the President's budget, it is still roughly $600 billion. So it's higher in his fourth year than the first budget that he inherited.

And so, while he would say he is reducing it by 50 percent, it is actually larger than the first budget that he inherited because his first budget adds over $1.7 trillion in deficit spending.

And I will yield back.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Texas makes some wonderful points. And I appreciate your concern for what happens when Madison, my daughter, grows up and what kind of country she is going to be left with and what kind of debt she is going to inherit. And I think when the American people across the country look at this--and they've started to look at it in, I think, a very close way. And what they're telling me when I go back home, and those of us that have gone throughout the country to our districts, they're telling us that this budget spends too much and it taxes too much. And it borrows too much from future generations at the expense of our ability to get our economy back on track to help those small businesses.

And then they look and they say, well, what are all of these deficits? What is all of this spending going toward? And what they see, they see that first stimulus bill, they look at this TARP money, they look at what's happening with that TARP money and AIG and companies that are getting this money. In some cases, you can't even find out what they did with the money. And then when you find out what they did, it makes you even more angry because you see they are giving it in bonuses to people who helped run those companies into the ground. These are people who truly would be unemployed because they bankrupted their own companies, and today the only reason they have a job is because of these Federal bailouts of these companies. And then they are using that money--not to make loans, but something even more egregious. And as angered as we are hearing about these bonuses that they're paying--$160 million in bonuses that AIG paid to its executives--we also found out today that AIG used $26 billion of that taxpayer money to give to French and German banks--not American banks, to help our American banking system, but $26 billion of that TARP money went to German and French banks, which might be helping their economies in those countries, but it sure isn't helping America. So for those of us who voted against those bailouts, saying I told you so doesn't help anybody, but saying this madness has to end.

And people are looking at this. And then they are seeing the budget that's proposed. And they're seeing these huge spikes in deficit spending and this huge amount of new government socializing of different systems and forms of our economy, and it's scaring people. Because when you look at the stock market, the stock market is an indication not just of what's happening to those individual companies, but of consumer confidence. In fact, since this President took office in January, the stock market is down about 25 percent. That means 401(k)s out there, families who are investing in those markets, their retirement savings are down over 25 percent just since January 20. We're not talking about something that has been going on for over a year now, we're talking about something that is maybe 2 months in the making, a 25 percent decrease because people are seeing these plans-- these spending plans, these tax plans, this massive borrowing--and they are realizing somebody has to pay for this.

And what are we doing with this money? And you can't even go find it. It's not helping our country get back on track; because, again, if you go back to the Great Depression--and we said we are going to talk about this a little bit--during the Great Depression in the 1930s, it wasn't because they didn't spent enough money. They actually spent money for years and years and the depression stayed as bad as it was. For over 8 years they spent money. And there is an old saying, if you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.

Back in the 1930s, the budget director, the Treasury Secretary under FDR, Henry Morgenthau, actually said, ``We're spending too much money.'' After 8 years of them spending money, they were still at double-digit unemployment. We were still in a Great Depression. In fact, some people said we were in a recession then, and the spending brought us into a Great Depression. And FDR's own Treasury Secretary in the 1930s said it's the spending that's giving us all this massive debt, and it's not doing anything to help our economy. It wasn't until World War II that we got back on track.

And so people are looking at that and saying, wait a minute; we sure don't want to make the mistakes of history's past if we learn how we are going to get ourselves out of this problem today.

If the gentleman has anything else to add----

Reclaiming my time. And I thank the gentleman from Texas for sharing that because that is the reason that we're here tonight because we know that there is a better way, there is a way out of this problem. And people across this country know. They know that we put a man on the moon because we, as a nation, set our mind to it and we said we are not going to accept failure. And so as people look at these proposals and they look at these record deficits, they know this is not the way out. They know that if spending would solve this problem, we would have the best economy in decades. And so, clearly, spending and taxing is not the answer.

But there are proven answers; and some of those answers are rooted in the very things we've been talking about, the alternative proposals we've been talking about, ways to help small businesses get back on their feet and hire more people. The people that employ 70 percent of our workforce today are being faced with $640 billion in taxes by this budget, and obviously that has had a ripple effect. And we can unravel that by stopping this from happening.

And people across this country know that, too. That's why you are seeing these tea parties sprout up all across the country where people are saying, we are not going to take it anymore, and we want to stand up and let the government know--because government does answer to the people, especially here in this House, of all places, the People's House. So this is the voice of the people, and we're trying to express that voice. And another great voice is my friend from Texas as well, Mr. Burgess.

I want to thank my friend from Texas for sharing that with us. And really it is important that we unravel this mess, that we not only fix these problems but also that we hold those accountable who got us in this mess in the first place because in some cases some of those same people are still out there today using taxpayer money to enrich themselves when so many people across the country are struggling.

And when we go back to these charts and we look at these record deficits, we look at the fact that, yes, in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, we had deficits and they were too high. But they were too high while they were less than $200 billion. Today we're facing a deficit that's over $1.7 trillion. An exorbitant amount of money. An amount of money that's going to saddle future generations.

And when we look historically at our national debt, we started with about $10 trillion in national debt at the beginning of this year. We're already closing in on $12 trillion in national debt, and this chart shows how it continues to rise in the years ahead with these record deficits and these taxes that are going to kill jobs in our country. So that's what we are trying to stop. We are not saying this is something that has already happened when we get beyond 2008. We're talking about things that are proposed that we can stop.

So I want to go back to my friend from Utah who's got an interesting insight as well to talk about what we can do to stop this and where this national debt leads us if we don't stop it from happening.

I thank my friend from Utah again because I think what he touches on is this lost direction, this lost focus on the real problem that we are facing right now. And those of us that are here tonight are staying here as late as we can to try to get this administration back on track, focused on fixing the problems of this economy, on fixing the problems in our banking system.

Again, that bill is still out there, H.R. 7223, from the 110th Congress. We are still ready to present these ideas. These are good solutions to solve the problems our country faces today. But instead what do we get? Instead of that line-by-line scrutiny that we need, for the last 2 weeks we've had the White House, people in the White House, picking on media personalities, talking about what Rush Limbaugh is saying on the radio or what Jim Cramer is saying on CNBC. If that's the focus of this administration, it's no wonder why people are so mad out there in the rest of the country saying what about the focus on the real problems that we are facing and the things that need to be done, the things the White House needs to be doing to address those problems, going line by line and cutting out the waste and the fraud and the corruption that exists in this government and in this budget instead of picking on media personalities or filing bills to tax small businesses or families on their energy bill?

Just last week we saw a bill filed called Card Check. A bill that literally would take away an employee's right to a secret ballot in a vote over whether or not to form a union. This is something for decades that's been in law. There's a process. If somebody wants to form a union, there is a process they go through, but it involves a secret ballot in the end to decide whether or not those employees actually want to form a union, and it's a protection for the employee so that they are freed from the intimidation and the coercion that has gone along in years past, in decades past, times in our history we sure don't want to repeat. That bill was filed last week to take away an employee's right to a secret ballot and forcing arbitration on companies.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has come out with reports that show that bill alone would cost our country 600,000 jobs in the first year, 600,000 jobs if that bill passed that would go overseas. And the President said he would sign that bill. So people look at this and they say we're facing real problems in our country, but we know, because we're America, because we are the greatest country in the world, we know we can address and fix these problems. But what they are very disappointed in is that they don't see solutions coming out of the leadership here in Congress and the White House. So that's why we are going to continue to talk about it and find solutions and find a better way.

I appreciate my friend from Missouri yielding me time, and you are talking about what is happening today here in Congress, and all across America because as people are tightening their belts and dealing with these tough economic times in their own way, in responsible ways, it seems like Washington, this is the only place where they seem to be going on a wild spending spree, spending money that we don't have on programs that actually are causing more problems, actually hurting our economy.

If you look at these proposals, especially this tax increase, and you just showed the proposal, the taxes both on small businesses, actually the engine of our economy, small businesses over $600 billion in taxes proposed on our small businesses, and they create 70 percent of our jobs.

But what is more frightening to Americans all across the country is they realize this cap-and-trade proposal, it is a term that really means energy tax. It is a $640 billion tax on energy. People who actually use energy in their homes, if you are turning on your lights, you are going to be paying more in taxes, to the tune, the estimate that we got from the Congressional Budget Office, they estimate that this proposal in the President's budget, moving through right now, something that we can stop, but in this proposal, it actually increases individual American tax bills, the bills on their utilities, by $1,300 a year.

Imagine that, in tough economic times like we are dealing with today, if you actually want to use your air conditioner during a hot summer, $1,300.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what their proposal does. The Congressional Budget Office estimates, and in fact the President's own budget director, Mr. Orszag, has been saying that this will actually increase utility bills for ratepayers across the country.

Not just a thousand, $1,300 a year in electricity tax increases that people would be paying on their electric bill every year. This isn't a one-time thing.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on Congressionally-directed project funding, I am submitting the following information regarding project funding I requested for Southeast Louisiana as part of the FY 2009 Omnibus.

Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: HHS, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-- Health Facilities and Services

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: West Jefferson Medical Center

Address of Requesting Entity: 1101 Medical Center Boulevard, Marrero, Louisiana 70072

Description of Request: I have secured $190,000 for West Jefferson Medical Center in Marrero, Louisiana. This funding will be used to relocate and upgrade emergency electrical system switchgear to above the 1st floor of the hospital to prevent loss of power due to possible flooding. It would also add on-site electrical generation capacity to power the entire facility with on-site diesel fuel for up to seven days. The upgrade would add an additional 1,500 KW generator and a 24,000 gallon diesel fuel tank capacity. It relocates and rewires the existing 13 mission critical electrical switchgear locations to an upper level to ensure continued operation in the event of

flooding and municipal power interruption. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA)--Training and Employment Services (TES)

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Southeastern Louisiana University

Address of Requesting Entity: SLU Box 10784, Hammond, Louisiana 70402

Description of Request: I have secured $190,000 for the Southeastern Louisiana University Economic and Workforce Development Initiative. The funding would be used to expand its pilot initiative to provide one stop economic/workforce development and community planning/smart growth assistance to meet the needs of Post-Katrina southeast Louisiana. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: DOT, Transportation, Community and System Preservation

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Regional Planning Commission

Address of Requesting Entity: 1340 Poydras Street, Ste. 2100, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

Description of Request: I have secured $285,000 for the Regional Planning Commission. The funding would be used for geometric and signalization improvements to Almedia Road (LA 50) at its intersections with US 61 to the north and LA 48 to the south. Almedia Road is a key north-south connector route on the eastbank of St. Charles Parish linking petrochemical facilities, refineries, and grain elevators along the Mississippi River with the national highway system, specifically, US 61, 1-310 and 1-10. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: DOT, Transportation, Community and System Preservation

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Regional Planning Commission

Address of Requesting Entity: 1340 Poydras Street, Ste. 2100, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

Description of Request: I have secured $356,250 for the Regional Planning Commission. The funding would be used to upgrade transportation and drainage on Clearview Parkway (LA Hwy. 3152) at the interchange area with Earhart Expressway (LA 3139) in the Elmwood area of Jefferson Parish. The Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD) will be the grant recipient on behalf of Jefferson Parish and the State of Louisiana. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: DOT, Transportation, Community and System Preservation

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Regional Planning Commission

Address of Requesting Entity: 1340 Poydras Street, Ste. 2100, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

Description of Request: I have secured $175,000 for the Regional Planning Commission. The funding would be used for construction of a Service Road of I-10 between LA 433 and US 190B in Slidell. This area of the Northshore has seen significant growth and development in the last decade. This trend is anticipated to continue and to expand further as the New Orleans region resettles as a result of Hurricane Katrina. The Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD) will be the grant recipient on behalf of St. Tammany Parish and the State of Louisiana. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: DOT, Transportation, Community and System Preservation

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: St. Tammany Parish government

Address of Requesting Entity: PO Box 628, Covington, Louisiana 70434

Description of Request: I have secured $237,500 for St. Tammany Parish government. This funding would be used for an interchange at 1- 12 and LA Highway 1088 in order to take traffic congestion off LA Highway 59 and US Highway 190. Traffic congestion is very heavy due to the continued population migration into St. Tammany Parish, the need for more schools and the expansion of retail and commercial businesses and residential subdivisions. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus

Account: DOT, Transportation, Community and System Preservation

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Regional Planning Commission

Address of Requesting Entity: 1340 Poydras Street, Ste. 2100, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

Description of Request: I have secured $237,500 for the Regional Planning Commission. This funding would be used for the widening of US 190 to a four lane section between US 11 and LA 433 in Slidell. The project is needed to alleviate severe congestion along the roadway that services the City of Slidell and eastern St. Tammany Parish. The project would help alleviate increasing congestion along the I-10/1-12 corridor by providing an alternative to the interstate. The Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD) will be the grant recipient on behalf of St. Tammany Parish and the State of Louisiana. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Mr. Speaker, as we start to debate the budget that was submitted last week, I think a lot of Americans all across the country and a lot of people here in this Chamber have some very serious concerns about the direction that this administration seems to be taking us in. This rampant spending and tax increases are dangerous to our country and our economy at a time when we are having trouble and difficulty all across the land.

The last thing we need is a $1.4 trillion tax increase, over $600 billion of which would fall on the backs of every small business owner in this country, and over $600 billion in the form of a carbon tax, a tax on energy, that every consumer in this country would pay in higher utility rates.

This is surely not the time to be raising taxes to the tune of over $1.4 trillion on the backs of small businesses and families across this country. We need to go in a better direction. We will be proposing that, and hopefully the administration will work with us to put us on a better path to get our country back on track.

I want to thank my friend from Mississippi, as well as the gentlelady from Tennessee, because as we start to see the real numbers--and the American public has been concerned about where the economy is--but they are also real concerned--and we're seeing more and more each day--real concerned about the gross level of spending that's coming out of this administration as a response to the crisis.

I think if you look at what's being presented, and as people are now starting to look and grab some of these numbers--and we're not just talking about hundreds of billions of dollars now; we're talking about well over a projected deficit of $1.7 trillion in this budget. So it makes people harken back and say, number one, what levels do these compare to. And when you look back, you can go back--you have to go all the way back to World War II to find a budget, a level of spending that's presented in this budget, a level of spending that's as high a gross domestic product of a percentage of GDP that we've had. And we haven't had this high a level of spending since World War II.

So if you go back to World War II and, of course, the Great Depression right before it, it really sparks a lot of comparisons that are frightening. And I think that's where the public is, but that's where the markets are. I know my friend from Tennessee talked about that, too. The markets are responding to what's happening here in this city in Washington, D.C., and it's not good. Their reaction is not good, what that means for people's 401(k)s. Just in the last 2 months, people have lost 20 percent of their 401(k)s because of the results of these policies not only that were passed in the spending bill just 2 weeks ago, but this budget that's been presented with its gross level of spending with its absorbitant level of tax increases.

So if we look here at a chart, this is a break down of the President's proposal of tax increases that's in this budget, this budget that has $1.7 trillion of new debt--not debt that was carried over from the previous administration. The buck stops here. And this President submitted this budget, he created this new level of spending, and he's choosing to pay for some of it--clearly not all of it--but some of it by one of the largest tax increases in the history of our country.

And while he says that less than 5 percent of the people of this country will pay these taxes, this chart will show you something very different, a stark difference in what we've been hearing; $1.4 trillion has been proposed by this President in this budget in new taxes at a time, of course, that our economy is in a recession.

I think when we talk about, now that we're in a recession, will we be going to a depression, look at what happened in this 1920s and the 1930s as we did go into a depression. And in many cases, it was policies in Washington, D.C., that not only pushed us into the depression but kept us there for 8 years. We were in the depression for 8 years. It took World War II to get us out of it.

And if you go back to 1932, the President who raised taxes during an economic downturn that was so severe in the 1930s--Herbert Hoover raised taxes, of all things, while the country was entering a depression. In 1932, Herbert Hoover on his way out as being voted out as President, he raised taxes dramatically. We're seeing the same process followed again. And then the people say, ``Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.''

When this country was entering the Great Depression in the 1930s, they raised taxes dramatically, and it helped--that and the gross level of spending--helped make that an 8-year process instead of a short depression that we could have gotten out of.

So if I can go back to this chart. Where are the taxes going to be paid? Who's going to be paying for those taxes? It's $636 billion of those new taxes are going to be thrown onto the backs of our small business owners. So when they talk about people who make over $250,000 a year--and I know some people want to pay class warfare and try to divide this country at a time when we need to be uniting this country and finding real solutions--they

talk about that top 5 percent. Well, who is that top 5 percent? That's the small business owners in our country who have created 70 percent of our jobs.

So if anybody can explain to me how raising $636 billion in new taxes on the backs of those very people who are creating the jobs that our economy needs, how is that going to get our economy back on track? That's something that the markets are reacting to and people across this country are starting to realize that it's a frightening realization.

What you said is exactly true. And there is a double whammy on this budget on the tax increases that have been proposed. Not only do $636 billion in new taxes get thrown onto the backs of small businesses all across this country, but then they come through the back door; and this is where the rest of the 95 percent of the people that supposedly aren't going to pay a new dime in new taxes, this is where they get hit.

This is their energy proposal on cap and trade. A carbon tax. This is something that you haven't heard a lot of people on the Democratic side talking about because as people see what this does, they realize this is where everybody else pays more money: $646 in new taxes on energy production in this country. And, of course, all across this country as energy taxes are increased, who pays for those taxes? That's not something that they just absorb. They have the authority to pass that on to rate payers.

I'm sorry if you already ate dinner. I'm sorry to upset your stomach. But a lot of people across the country are starting to get very upset as they see the realization of these proposals because change as a concept sounds great. There are a lot of things we need to change about Washington, D.C. In fact, we've proposed an alternative H.R. 470. You can actually go on line. We put our proposals on line. We put that proposal out there weeks and weeks ago. H.R. 470 is a true alternative to get our economy back on track.

What we've been presented with, unfortunately, with this administration is the oldest failed policy that will keep us deeper in a, not only recession, but can throw us into a recession; and that is a tax-and-spend approach, which has been proven to fail every time.

So this cap and trade program right here, this is--they can call it whatever they want, but when you start having to pay higher fees on your utility bills, that's a tax to you. That's a tax increase. If your utility bill goes up and you're using the same amount of energy because of this carbon tax $646 billion, if people across the country don't think that's going to result in something that's going to have a significant impact on their budgets as they're tightening. And people are conserving energy. People are tightening their belts.

But as they're conserving that energy, they're going to be getting hit with $646 billion in new taxes on top of the $636.00 billion that our small businesses will be hit with.

That's not only right, but those people in the lower incomes are the ones that are least likely to be able to afford these massive tax increases they get on their utility bills. Because if your utility bill goes up even though you're using the same amount of energy, or in some cases you're using less energy--maybe you actually went and put some insulation in your attic because you wanted to lower your rates--this carbon tax is actually going to raise your utility bills even though you've done those things.

If I could ask for the gentleman to yield for one moment.

There is one bit of good news. While these are difficult times, while there's a lot of bad news--and as people look at these details, it frightens a lot of people. But this has not been passed into law yet. These are proposals the President just filed this last week. We haven't even started having hearings in Congress. If people all across this country--as I'm sure they will do when they start realizing the negative impacts to our economy of these new taxes, these massive taxes--people, I think, are going to start lighting up those phones. They're going to start calling their congressmen. They're going to call the White House. And they are going to say enough is enough.

The spending and the taxes, just like in the 1930s, didn't work. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the Treasury Secretary under FDR. This has been tried before and it's failed before. Not only did it fail, it pushed us into a deeper depression. And I think the public across this country is going to say, ``Enough is enough. We're not going to take these new taxes and this ridiculous level of spending,'' and the public can stop this.

Thank you. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri. What we've been talking about is the concern that a lot of us have with the runaway spending we have here in Washington.

And as we all sat in this Chamber last night and listened to the President, there were a number of things he said that I think we all agreed with. One of the things that he harped on was the concern about adding more money, billions and trillions of dollars, to the national debt, and I share that concern.

But I think what's even of more concern is that, if we look at what's happened in these last 6 weeks, we've seen not a reduction in spending, not a reduction in debts, we've seen a dramatic increase. In fact, in just the last 6 weeks since Barack Obama has been President, we've seen over $2 trillion added to the national debt. That's a 20 percent increase in the national debt. And that's the burden that our children and our grandchildren are going to have to inherit.

In a period of 6 weeks between the spending bill that was passed and signed into law last week, added $800 billion in new government spending--not a bill to help stimulate our economy; a bill to massively grow the size of government, many programs, as you discussed, that are permanent programs, not one-time infrastructure spending.

The other thing--and tomorrow there will be a bill filed; the President will be presenting his new budget. The expectations of what we're hearing is that that budget will be over $1 trillion out of balance. More money added to the national debt.

And on top of that, a bill that a lot of us that are concerned about this runaway spending voted against, but a bill that passed today was this omnibus bill: $400 billion of additional spending, representing an 8 percent increase in government spending at a time when States and families across this country are cutting back their spending because of tough economic times. Seems like Washington's the only place going on a spending spree.

It's hard to picture when yesterday you hear somebody talking about the dangers of adding more money to the national debt, ironically on Mardi Gras day, and it seems like today and tomorrow, when these bills are filed, adding trillions more debt, it seems like the same people are trying to act like the King of Carnival, throwing beads and trinkets to people with more government spending.

This was a picture that was actually in the New Orleans newspaper yesterday on Mardi Gras Day, and it talked about and it shows people throwing money, literally throwing money from a float. And it's titled ``Stimulus,'' and they said, ``We'll worry about the hangover tomorrow.''

And the sad part of it is, it's not our money that they're throwing. It's not only the taxpayers' money, but it's our children and grandchildren's money that they're throwing, because this is money we don't have. This is money that's going to go out and be printed up on a printing press because we don't have that money sitting in a bank somewhere.

And so it adds more money--over 20 percent in 6 weeks has been added to the national debt. And that's the burden our children and grandchildren will inherit. And this has to end.

I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding.

This is a very critical debate. It is a debate on the most important issue facing our country. We are talking now about the single largest spending bill in the history of our country being rammed through with very little debate. There are closed-door, backroom deals being cut right now on the actual final product that we're going to vote on today. None of us here can even see it. We were told this was going to be the most transparent administration. The American people can't even go online right now and see it. They can't

even get a copy faxed to them because there is no copy available. It's being debated behind closed doors and with no public input, and we're starting to hear about some things that may be in it. I think it concerns a lot of people as they have already seen some things that are in this bill that are very concerning.

We are hearing that there are going to be billions of dollars for a railroad between California and Las Vegas. I don't know about you, my good friend from Iowa, but we used to hear that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. I guess now what happens in Vegas is going to affect every taxpayer in this country. Billions of dollars on that one item.

There is language that we're hearing is going to be in this bill that will undermine the welfare reforms that were made in the 1990s, welfare reforms that have been dramatically successful in helping people get off of welfare and get off of that government dependence and finally get jobs--good, healthy jobs, good-paying jobs, good careers. For those single women who are out there who are, maybe, single mothers who are finally getting a good career opportunity, that is being taken away from them with the undermining of this welfare reform that is in this language.

The health care czar, this is something that we have never even heard about before. Now we're finding out there is language that is going to create some kind of health care czar that will basically be able to ration health care.

So there are some major changes in here that do not stimulate the economy at all, that do not create any jobs but that make some very dramatic policy changes that will affect adversely many, many millions of people across this country and that will hurt our economy even worse at a time when we need to be turning it around. We have presented good alternatives to try to get our economy back on track which would create jobs in the middle class for those small businesses.

I just want to read one final word before we leave, because all of this massive spending is creating tremendous debt. Just look at what FDR's Treasury Secretary said after the New Deal with all of the spending they did.

``We are spending more than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. I say, after 8 years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot.''

Let's not make the mistakes of the past.

I yield back.