Providing for Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules
Floor Speech
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES -- (House of Representatives - February 12, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I sometimes find serving in Congress greatly baffling because here we are, while many, many Americans, millions of Americans are unemployed, and we're actually going to debate a bill on if we should start working at 9 a.m. Why are we having that debate? Let's just go ahead and do it. Maybe we should show up for work at 8 a.m. and start voting. This is not exactly a real controversial issue.
And then, while unemployment is at an all-time high, foreclosures right and left, and there's a big credit crunch, we're going to spend time and tax dollars congratulating the Pittsburgh Steelers. Why don't we just say, hey, congratulations. Now we've got to get people working again. But we are actually printing a bill that congratulates the Pittsburgh Steelers, while people are having their houses foreclosed.
Meanwhile, out in San Francisco, a rat is going to get $30 million in the so-called stimulus bill. Apparently, it's a full employment bill for rats in the San Francisco Bay area. Of course we would never call this an earmark because the Speaker has told us there are no earmarks in this bill. And the fact that this rat lives in her district and it's a $30 million specified earmark, would not suggest that it's an earmark because we've been told there are no earmarks in it. Thirty million dollars to preserve a rat, while the Federal Government also spends millions of dollars eliminating rats. This is hard to understand. I guess it's a job-creation program because you're creating jobs eliminating rats in some areas, and creating jobs preserving rats in other areas. Thirty million dollars.
Meanwhile, if you've been laid off or your house is being foreclosed, what's in this bill for you? Well, very little. But perhaps you could go to San Francisco and borrow some money from the rats. Maybe they could say, hey, you know, we actually can reproduce without $30 million. Oh, wait a minute. I just thought about it. That's why it's called a stimulus bill. It stimulates rat activities so we can grow more rat families out in San Francisco.
You know, the Republican alternative has twice the jobs created at half the cost. The Democrat big government spending plan creates 3.7 million jobs, or saves 3.7 million jobs. We're not sure exactly what saving means. We do know it saves lots of government jobs. We know that if you're in the rat preservation business, certainly that $30 million will be saving your very important job during this time. But I'm going to go ahead and say, it does create or save 3.7 million jobs.
But the Republican plan, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, creates 6 million jobs. The Democrat big spending plan is about $790 billion, as the opening bid. Because we all know that what the government plan does is create new floors for the budget. So when we go back on the regular budget process, these temporary expenditures will become the permanent floor.
And we also know that there will be billions of dollars spent on interest as we borrow this money. So the Democrat plan, basically, is about $1 trillion. The Republican plan is less than $400 billion, and it's in targeted tax cuts that create jobs in the small business sector. That's what we need right now. We need small businesses to go out and expand. We need them to buy new equipment. We need them to hire new employees. That's what the Republican plan does.
The Federal Government, under the Democrat plan, will continue to borrow and print money. We know right now we owe foreign governments $3 trillion, 22 percent of which is held by the Chinese, followed by Japan, followed by Great Britain, but $3 trillion that we are borrowing from foreign governments, and we will have to borrow more money. In fact, in 1 year, we will borrow more money than we did the first 200 years of history in the United States of America. That is, from 1799 to 1980, we've borrowed less money than we will this 1 year. We are doubling the money supply, which will lead to inflation.
This Democrat big government expansion plan that is using the tragedy of people's unemployment and foreclosures as an excuse to expand good government includes 32 brand new Federal programs. As Ronald Reagan said, if you don't believe in resurrection, try killing a Federal program. You just can't do it.
There's $100 million in here for school lunchroom equipment. I guess now we can start serving popcorn and maybe put in smoothie machines, maybe even cotton candy. That probably will help kids' self-esteem, so we probably should do it.
There's $4 million in here to create a green building oversight agency in the Federal Government. So $4 million, again, create some government jobs, I guess, but we'll have a green building monitoring system. I'm sure that that 4 million is targeted, temporary, and will disappear at the end of this budget cycle, but that's not going to be the case and we know that.
The Department of Energy, their budget, their annual budget is doubled in the stimulus plan. Now, there may be reason to double the bureaucrat budget over at the Department of Energy because I know that that creates lots more government jobs. But why aren't we doing that in the annual budget?
Why does that have to be sneaked in the back door?
There is money in here. Of course, we never call this an earmark, but there is a non-earmark "earmark'' in here to study the profit-making of private industries in the Northern Mariana Islands and in American Samoa. I don't know why. I don't think anybody on the floor can tell us why we need to study the profit-making ability of private industry in the Northern Marianas and in American Samoa. I certainly would say that is not an earmark, but I wonder who put that in. Who sneaked it into this voluminous piece of legislation?
Now, there is also $200 billion in phantom earmarks, phantom earmarks because they don't have anybody's name by it. There is $200 billion in largess that will be spent by State and local governments. The difference is, in these non-earmarks, they are phantom earmarks because no one's names will be by them.
I am a member of the Appropriations Committee, and if I request new barracks for the soldiers of the 3rd Infantry down in Fort Stewart, Georgia, my name will be listed by it. I will have to be justified as to why I think those barracks should be paid for by the taxpayers. I will explain why the soldiers who have been in Iraq need to come home to good barracks. That's fair. It gives sunshine to it. It gives transparency. Yet $200 billion in phantom earmarks of which we won't know how it is spent?
You know, I'll say this: At least with regard to the $30 million for the San Francisco rat we've got an idea as to who put that one in, and we certainly know where it's going to be spent. I am looking forward to seeing these $30 million rats one day if I can get out to San Francisco, because they must be some fine-looking animals. I mean we don't just spend money like that on any rat. They've got to be San Francisco marsh rats. They're probably walking around, have got some nice looking clothes on--San Francisco stuff. They're probably wearing flip flops and sunglasses as they're going over to Sausalito for lunch and looking out across the bay at Alcatraz and saying, ``Hey, is that where the Guantanamo prisoners are going to end up?'' Probably not. Of course, that would be an earmark if we did that.
Anyway, Madam Speaker, here we are with a bill that I will venture to say not one Member of Congress has seen yet. I know that there have been some inside-the-beltway people who have seen it, but I don't think there is one Member of Congress who has seen this stimulus bill which we may be about to vote on. This bill is bigger than the leftover budget from last year. It is $790 billion. It is the largest single vote in terms of an expenditure in the history of the United States Congress. Yet I have not seen the bill. I would love to know where I could see the bill. Where can I find this bill? I want to start reading it.
I will ask my friend from North Carolina: Have you seen this bill?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. KINGSTON. Here we are. You are a member of the Rules Committee. The bill has to go through the Rules Committee. You have to be the one to sign off on it.
Would the gentlewoman tell me this: Would we be able to offer an amendment--I don't want to say to "kill the rats''--but maybe to let them continue breeding on their own as they have since--well, some will say "creation'' and some will say "evolution''? I don't want to touch on some tenderness out there, but rats have probably been doing really well. Here they are, surviving.
Could we offer an amendment to kill this proposal?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I appreciate that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. KINGSTON. Okay. Well, I want to say this to my friend from Colorado, and I want to say this to my friend from North Carolina: where I am very frustrated is that here we have this huge bill. As I understand it--and I know the gentleman supports this--they lay it on the table for 48 hours so that people can look at it. I'm afraid, beyond the people who are in the Chamber right now, that that rule is going to be waived. That is not what we're voting on now as I understand it, but I am concerned that, later on in the course of this day, we will get a rule that will say we will waive the requirement that a bill has to sit on the table for 48 hours so that Members of Congress can read it.
Now, remember that we have philosophical disagreements on this bill. I support tax cuts, a little spending, more money for public works--more money for highways, roads, dams, and bridges--as does the next person, and I understand we're going to have a good debate on it, but I think that the democratic way of doing business in a legislative chamber should be to put this bill on the table so that everybody has time to read it. I would venture to say, whether you are Democrat or Republican, rank-and-file Members have not been able to read this bill. It is very important that we read the bill and that we have transparency and sunshine and an open debate on it. So, when that time comes, I hope that we will have bipartisan support that does not waive the 48-hour requirement so that we have an opportunity to see what is in this bill.
Also, I want to say this: you know the Republican proposal. It is twice the jobs created at half the cost, which I support, but with the passage of this, it doesn't end the debate. I'm going to continue to fight for it. I know the gentlewoman will, and I look forward to working with my friend from Colorado on these things because there will be some opportunities down the road to change and to modify this because, if this stimulus package that was cut in a backroom deal last night is voted on today or maybe tomorrow instead of next week sometime after we've already read it, then I think we're just going to have to continue to stay engaged and see what we can do to improve upon it.
I will take the President at his word when he says he wants to do bipartisan things. I want to engage in that process on a bipartisan basis. I don't think three Republicans in the Senate who move over constitutes something as being bipartisan. In fact, if you want to talk bipartisan, there were eleven Democrats who voted against it in the House, so the bipartisan vote in the House was against the stimulus package. Yet, if we need to keep working and not vote on this bill for two or three more days, I think it's very important, because no one, Democrat or Republican, is talking about not doing anything. Not doing anything is not an option that anybody on this side of the aisle is discussing. We're talking about twice the jobs at half the cost.
Couldn't we combine the best ideas of the Republican Party with the best ideas of the Democrat Party and put aside the labels and try to do what is best for America?
That person out there who cannot borrow money, that person out there who has been foreclosed on, that person out there who has lost his kid's college education or his savings, and that person out there who is unemployed, that is who we need to focus on.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source