American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Floor Speech

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 -- (Senate - February 05, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to enthusiastically support the bill of my good friend and colleague Senator John McCain. Let me address one thing that was said. My good friend Senator Jack Reed said we are in this deficit problem because of the way George Bush spent money. I happened to look back at the last two Congresses. There was not an appropriation bill that Senator Reed voted against.

The President cannot spend money; only the Congress can spend money. That is one of the reasons we are here today having alternatives presented; it is because Congress is in charge of the purse. There are objections and disagreements and different ways of looking at everything. I think most Members want to look at this legislation called a ``stimulus''--I call it a ``spending'' bill--and try to get it back to something that is targeted, timely and, more important, temporary. That is what Senator McCain's substitute proposal does.

As a matter of fact, the differences we have today are over economic recovery. The question that Americans should ask is: Is economic recovery the result of how much Congress spends or is economic recovery about how targeted our spending is and how we use those dollars to leverage job creation and investments in job creation? I believe it is the latter. I believe we have to encourage investment.

Senator Thune did a great job of talking about the trillion dollar-plus on this bill--$900 billion plus in spending, at a very crucial time, plus interest, comes to about $1.2 trillion. I point out to my colleagues that several weeks ago, we appropriated $350 billion to the TARP. This week, I am convinced that this Senate and this Congress will hand to the President that $1.2 trillion spending bill. It is my understanding that appropriators plan to
come to the floor in the next couple weeks with an omnibus spending bill of a trillion dollars. It is also my understanding that the Secretary of the Treasury will suggest to the President that the administration come back to the Congress in the very near future to ask for at least a half trillion dollars in additional TARP money, meaning that over a 60-day period this Congress could spend almost $3 trillion.

Let me put that in perspective. If you extrapolate that almost $300 billion is the interest on this bill alone, that means that the commitment, the obligation, the debt to the next generation that we will do in this Congress over the next 60 days is almost a trillion dollars in interest. Ask yourself, can your children retire that debt over their lifetime, much less pay back the money we have spent?

It is clear that the McCain proposal will fail. I hate to start a debate with an admission that that is going to happen. But when one of the key elements of this bill is rejected, with only 44 members supporting it, I think the die is pretty well cast.

What was that key point of the McCain proposal? It simply said this: After two quarters of positive growth over 2 percent, adjusted for inflation against GDP, that an amazing thing would happen in Washington: we would stop spending money. If for some reason we still had money left out of the $1.2 trillion commitment, it would stop; that there is no longer a reason to fuel growth if, in fact, we have growth that is happening and that we would do a rescission on the rest of the money. In other words, we would pull back the commitment we made, and we would reserve that money for reduction of our debt.

In addition to that, he said we will automatically go in and make sure that every new program that was created, 30-plus programs, were no longer there, they would be eliminated. For the people who follow inside-the-park way we do things in Washington, we would go to the baseline of spending and we would take all of that new spending out of the baseline so we did not automatically start next year's appropriations at a higher point, reflective of what is supposed to be targeted, timely, and temporary. It did not pass.

More Members said: We understand we said we want it targeted, timely, and temporary, but we really didn't mean it on the temporary part; we want to expand permanently the size of spending for the Federal Government. When we do that in a deficit situation, we have compound interest. Just as many of us as we grew up understood and learned, compound interest was something we gained on deposits. This is compound expenses, obligations to future generations.

What Senator McCain's substitute does is it focuses how much we spend and where we spend it.

We have been criticized because Senator McCain's substitute proposal only spends a little over $400 billion. You have to ask yourself: Who came up with $900 billion? I haven't heard an economist saying: If you spend $900 billion, you will solve the economic crisis in America. This is a number that has been pulled out of the sky. It was constructed based on where people wanted to spend money.

I compliment the chairman because last night he accepted--this body accepted by voice vote an amendment in Senator McCain's substitute which jump-starts housing again, and this bill was deficient on jump-starting housing. I think this is a good amendment they accepted. It is part of the core of the McCain substitute.

Part of the core of the McCain substitute, though, is also making sure we leave money in the pockets of the American people--$275 billion that has been proven over time to stimulate growth, to go into the economy, not targeted at rich people. We have had that debate way too much. It is targeted at individuals by eliminating the payroll tax for 1 year going away. It is targeted at people at the 15-percent tax rate going to 10 and the people at the 10-percent tax rate going to 5. It is targeted at the individuals who have an income, who are likely to spend.

I agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. What we have to do, in addition to stabilizing the financial markets, is get us participating in the U.S. economy again. This alternative proposal is targeted to leave that $275 billion in the pockets of the American people. It is targeted to put $50 billion into programs that help those who have been most affected by job loss, by the need to feed their families. It has targeted $32 billion to restart this housing market, and it has targeted $64 billion in a combination of infrastructure in communities across this country and our military installations and the reset of programs that are absolutely vital.

Let me end where I started by saying that the single most important thing the McCain substitute does is it has a 3-year sunset. It says that in 3 years, everything goes away. If, in fact, this bill accomplishes what its author says it will, then we will not wait 3 years, if you accept this spending proposal, because after two consecutive quarters of economic growth, everything would stop.

I believe the American people deserve sunsets such as this. They deserve triggers in bills that say once we accomplish what we set out to accomplish and we all agree we need, let's stop it there. Let's not just consider because we authorized it to be spent that we are going to continue to open the spigot and the next generation suffers. We will not be here. I don't think there is a parent in America or a grandparent in America who is not willing to make sure the next generation and the next generation and the next generation has as good an opportunity as we had.

I am going to tell you, Mr. President, over the next 60 days, we will spend, we will appropriate, we will authorize over $3 trillion. If we look at the portraits that are around the Senate and the Capitol, our forefathers would be turning in their graves today if they could. They did not even envision what a trillion dollars was, much less that Congress would talk about spending over $1 trillion in one bill or $3 trillion in 60 days, almost a trillion dollars' worth of interest obligation to the next generation. But we are doing it like routine business. We are going to rush through this in less than a week.

I remember when there was an energy bill in the Senate. We spent 3 weeks, not stalling but debating different types of solutions to the problem. That is what we are doing today, offering substitutes, offering amendments. But the die is cast. They are not going to be accepted. As Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, said, and I think her remarks are embraced over here: We won; therefore, we have a right to do it exactly like we want to do it.

It is time for bipartisanship. It is a time for compromise. Compromise is not ``take ours and not have yours heard.'' Compromise is also not ``you can offer all of yours, and we will just routinely object to them, vote them down.'' Who loses then? It is not me. It is not the minority. It is the American people. This is a debate that is worth having. It is a debate for the American people and for the next generation. So understand, if changes are not made, it is not that the minority lost, it is that the American people lost. What we are trying to do is targeted, it is temporary, and it hopefully is timely.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source