W. Akin

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. I very much appreciate the tremendous cooperation that so existed on the Armed Services Committee. I'm sensitive to your concerns about this being overly broad in its drafting. I hate redtape and paperwork and am very open-minded to work along these lines. I think our concerns are very much the same on this issue. And I look forward to working with you. Unfortunately, in trying to get the thing drafted the way we wanted, we ran out of time today. So we're just going to go ahead and offer the amendment, but I look forward as we have time in the weeks ahead. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. As ranking member of the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee, I applaud the efforts of Chairman Taylor and his staff, who have done an excellent job in meeting the needs of our sailors, aviators, and marines. With respect to aviation, the bill takes an important step toward addressing the Navy's strike-fighter shortfall. The Navy completed a study required in last year's bill to evaluate the potential benefits of a multiyear procurement for the F/A-18 Super Hornet, which is the only ``hot'' production line we have for fighters for the Navy. Unfortunately, the Secretary of Defense refused to allow the report to be submitted to Congress. In the absence of any analysis of this issue from the Department, the committee used its own judgment and included a multiyear authority for the Super Hornet. We also provide sufficient long-lead funding to allow the Navy to execute this multiyear contract. I believe this is imperative, especially as the Navy continues to find more and more areas of concern on the legacy fleet that may make it challenging to extend the service life of these aircraft. I want to thank Chairman Taylor for working with me on this issue, as well as a number of others. For the Marine Corps, the bill fully funds the Marine's Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, known as MRAPs, and all of the items on their unfunded requirements. Despite the fact that the Department of Defense refused to provide the 30-year shipbuilding program required by law, which made this committee's work difficult, the bill largely supports the President's budget request in this area. At the full committee, Representative Conaway and I, along with Chairman Taylor, introduced an amendment that would put some teeth into the changes made to the Littoral Combat Ship program cost cap. The Navy needs to know that we're serious about controlling costs and do not adjust cost caps lightly. The main concern I have with this bill does not fall under the Seapower Subcommittee, but I must mention it. Cutting missile defense by $1.2 billion makes no sense, particularly when North Korea and Iran are both working on nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. A cut of this magnitude is unacceptable. I also continue to have one other overarching concern. We're not investing enough in the future of our military. The top line provided by the administration and, frankly, by this Congress, is too low. While we seem to be throwing money into every other problem under the Sun, we're tightening our belts on defense. This makes no sense. But, again, this is a good bill overall, and Chairman Skelton has done his best with these constraints. We're very thankful for his leadership. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to give my best wishes to our former ranking member, John McHugh, who has a fine record in this institution, and I know he will continue to serve and fight for the men and women in uniform. Nevertheless, he will be missed on this committee. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the winner of the 2009 Keystone Center Leadership Award for Leadership in Industry, Mr. Hugh Grant, chairman, president, and CEO of Monsanto Corporation. Keystone Awardees have contributed to society in ways that reflect the spirit and mission of the Keystone Center and have demonstrated a history of achievement with a strong sense of vision, a proven ability to motivate others, dedication to team work and consensus, and the drive and ability to initiate fundamental and long-term positive change. I commend Mr. Grant's exemplary leadership and the 20,000-strong Monsanto team for their extraordinary efforts and positive influence on American agriculture, technological innovation, and generous contributions to international health, development, and their continued commitment to combating hunger. Monsanto, under Grant's leadership, proves that free enterprise is the most effective way to solve seemingly intractable problems like hunger in sub-Saharan Africa. Not only has Monsanto provided a sustainable food source for hundreds of millions of people, but they have given hope to people who have been denied a future for far too long. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Hugh Grant and saying thank you to the entire Monsanto team. You put the power of innovation and enterprise to work for the world's poorest peoples and demonstrate true American compassion.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate 150 years of operation by the Missouri Botanical Garden and to congratulate the work of its current president, Dr. Peter H. Raven. The garden was the conception of a successful businessman, Henry Shaw, who moved to Saint Louis in the early nineteenth century to begin his career in the hardware business. His business grew along with the city as he outfitted pioneers, who were heading west into the newly purchased territories. As his wealth grew, Shaw turned his attention to his true passion, horticulture. He established and maintained a personal garden on his estate and on June 15th, 1859, he opened it to the public. Upon his death, Shaw's will established the Missouri Botanical Garden as a charitable trust on the grounds of his estate in south Saint Louis, where it remains to this day. In continuing the vision and passion of its founder, the Missouri Botanical Garden has grown into one of the premier research institutions in the world. Throughout its history, the garden and its staff have contributed significantly to the scientific community, helping to establish a sound base of knowledge in the field of botany. As the oldest continually operating botanical garden in the United States, Missouri Botanical Garden has provided Saint Louisans and visitors from across the globe with the best in horticultural displays. Recently, this homegrown institution received its re-accreditation from the American Association of Museums, the field's primary vehicle for quality assurance. The Missouri Botanical Garden was recognized for its commitment to excellence in all that it does: governance, collections stewardship, public programs, financial stability, high professional standards, and providing the best possible services to the public. Today, 150 years after opening, the Missouri Botanical Garden is a National Historic Landmark and a center for science, conservation, education and horticultural display. I ask that my colleagues join me today in congratulating the Missouri Botanical Garden for its achievements and thanking Dr. Raven for his stewardship of this national treasure.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to welcome Archbishop Robert J. Carlson who was installed as Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Louis. A native of Minneapolis, Minnesota, Archbishop Robert J. Carlson began his seminary education in 1962 at Saint Paul Seminary in Saint Paul, Minnesota, earning a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy in 1966 and successfully completed his studies earning a Masters of Divinity degree in 1976. Archbishop Carlson was ordained to the priesthood on May 23, 1970 and served the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis for several years until 1977 when he began graduate studies at the Catholic University of America, where he earned a Licentiate in Canon Law. Thirteen years after his ordination to the priesthood Archbishop Carlson was named Auxiliary Bishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis by His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, choosing for his episcopal motto: ANTE CRUCEM NIHIL DEFENSIONIS (``Before the Cross There Is No Defense''). Archbishop Carlson was later named Coadjutor of the Diocese of Sioux Falls in 1994 and succeeded Bishop Paul V. Dudley as the 7th Bishop of Sioux Falls in 1995. Less then ten years later he was named Bishop of Saginaw by His Holiness, Pope John Paul II in December 2004 and was installed as its 5th Bishop in February 2005 by Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America. Archbishop Robert J. Carlson was appointed Archbishop of St. Louis by His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, on April 21, 2009. He is the 9th Archbishop and the 10th Bishop of St. Louis since its establishment as a diocese in 1826. The St. Louis Archdiocese comprises more than one-half million Catholics, who worship at its 198 churches and chapels. More than 48,700 children attend the 152 Catholic schools in the Archdiocese. I ask that my colleagues join me today in welcoming Archbishop Carlson and congratulating him on his new appointment.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the supplemental. It's actually something that I voted on not so long ago, but things have changed. Things have changed radically. In fact, it seems that the Obama administration has included in this supplemental a request for $108 billion, taking money away from defense and putting it into the International Monetary Fund. Now, they call that the IMF. A lot of people don't know what the IMF is, but here we are taking money away from our defense spending, away from our soldiers and away from our taxpayers, and we're going to put it into this International Monetary Fund. Exactly what does that do? Well, that allows some of our good friends, like Iran and Venezuela, to access this money to build their country and their programs and to use it according to the dictates of the way they run their countries. These are not only our competitors, but they are the countries that do the most they can to cause us trouble. So why in the world do we want to levy more taxes on our taxpayers, take the money that was for defense and give it away to our enemies? It doesn't make any sense. This should not be included in the defense supplemental. This should be about taking care of our men and women in uniform. It should be about taking care of their equipment, their needs, their education, and the training that they need, not about giving money away to the international community to be used in who knows what way by who knows what country. So as strong as I am on defense--and I've always been a strong defender. I've been on the Armed Services Committee for 9 years. I have three sons who've graduated from the Naval Academy. This will not stand. I will not vote for a supplemental that is giving money to some foreign country, money that should go to our soldiers. General Leave

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. I very much thank Congresswoman Bachmann and the other great guests that we have had tonight. I thank you for this little symposium on freedom and the need to have the Federal Government restrained to its proper limits.

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, there was a cynical comment that was made by people who take a look at history. They say that one of the things we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history. I don't know that that is universally true, but certainly for our subject for this evening, that will certainly be the theme, that we are not learning very much from history. We are going to be taking a look at the fruit of fiscal mismanagement, and particularly what is going on in our country in terms of a very, very important number, and that is unemployment. The unemployment numbers have continued to rise, in spite all kinds of assurances that by spending tons and tons of money, that we can turn those numbers around. The historic connector here that is I think quite interesting is a fellow by the name of Henry Morgenthau. Probably you have not heard of Henry Morgenthau, but he was an important figure in his own day. And here in this Chamber, in this House, Henry Morgenthau met with the Ways and Means Committee in 1939. Henry Morgenthau was FDR's Secretary of the Treasury and he had 8 years working on a theory that is known as Keynesian economics. He was one of the main architects of Keynesian economics, whose idea was that what the government needs to do is to stimulate the economy. You have heard that phrase over and over, stimulate the economy, and the purpose of stimulating the economy is, of course, to create more jobs. That is a little bit like grabbing the straps on your boots and lifting up and trying to fly around the room. It doesn't work. And after 8 years of failed experience, these were the words, the very quote of Henry Morgenthau here in this building before the Ways and Means Committee. He said, ``We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before, and it does not work.'' His words are echoing down through history. ``It does not work, I say. After 8 years of the administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started, and an enormous debt to boot.'' These are the words coming to us, floating down through history by Henry Morgenthau, the main architect of Keynesian economics. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the master of the policy of stimulating the economy with big spending. Maybe we haven't been doing a good enough job on stimulating the economy with big spending, so let's just take a look and see what we have come up here in just the last year or so. I am joined by a number of my good friends and colleagues who are going to help us in unpacking some of what is in this spending that we have and also going to help talk about this incredible statement that was made by the President last week that, somehow or another, that his administration had created 100,000 to 150,000 new jobs. It is kind of amazing, because all of the actual numbers from the government show that that is not true at all. So we have quite an interesting evening together. And I'm joined by a good friend of mine from Iowa, Congressman King, who is here to join us in our conversation tonight. I hope that everybody else will feel comfortable to just tune right in and join us. We're going to have a little bit of fun and take a look at some of the economics. It's a serious picture, but it's an example to us that we must learn from history. It's also an example of the fact that America is on the wrong track. As we take a look at what's going on with job losses, I think many Americans, Congressman King, understand the fact that all is not right and that unemployment number jumping up as high as 9-something percent is not acceptable. I would yield time to my good friend from Iowa, Congressman King.

Mr. AKIN. I just have to kind of wonder what he was drinking when he came up with a theory like that. That's an interesting tidbit of history.

Mr. AKIN. I appreciate the doctor from Texas bringing some wisdom here and some economic common sense. And certainly I think most people know intuitively these things are connected. If you spend a whole lot, eventually you're going to go into debt and then the debt is going to influence things. And in this case, I am an engineer by training, not a medical doctor, but it's almost like drawing a vacuum economically in the economy. So those small businesses that we are just hearing about like out in Wyoming, those small businesses don't have the money they need to invest to drill a well or whatever it is; so the main engine of job creation just dries up. So what you are doing is almost like either starving or dehydrating your economy because the government is just becoming so oppressive and expansive in everything that it is trying to do. And as we heard eloquently expressed from the gentlewoman from Minnesota, the story about what happens when the Federal Government starts to get into the business of running car things. I am picturing there is going to be somebody possibly listening into our discussion that's going to be a cartoonist, and they are going to think about the automobile that is going to be designed by the U.S. Congress, and they are going to have an interesting caricature of what the engine and the wheels look like and how big it is and all kinds of things. There is probably already a YouTube being created or something along those lines. But it's not a pretty picture of having the Federal Government running our business in our private sector. And the genius of our country is to make that distinction, and we are blurring it badly and it's going to cause a lot of trouble. I am going to yield to my good friend Congressman King from Iowa. Please join us.

Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, I want to get what you're saying because I think this is important. You're saying there is a relationship between this tremendous level of debt that we are building and the unemployment numbers. In other words, when you have a whole lot more debt, particularly debt with spending, and, of course, spending is causing the debt, you're going to have bad trouble with unemployment. Is that what this economist is saying, gentleman?

Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time for a moment, in a way that's a little bit unusual, isn't it? There are usually a few Democrats who will vote differently than their party or a few Republicans who will vote differently. In this case, though, on this great big porkulus bill, every single Republican voted ``no.''

Mr. AKIN. You're talking about millions of job loss as a result of this new tax that's being concocted here. I would like to recognize another doctor who has joined us. We have got some doctors out tonight, and my good friend Dr. Burgess, I want to recognize him. What we have been talking about is this incredible trend in unemployment and also the trend of excessive spending. I would be happy to have your perspective, Doctor.

Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, that was exactly what he said. And actually, that made common sense to me because when you go back to this Keynesian economic scheme, what they would argue would be, Hey, we just took all this tax money and we hired these people; so when we hired somebody, we created a job; so, therefore, we had a net. We just hired someone to increase the job by one. And what the economist found was, when you take that tax money out of things, what happens is, when you took the tax money away to hire the one person, you lost 2.2 jobs over in the private side. So that ratio seems to kind of follow the economic principle that when the Federal Government--yes, you can have the Federal Government take a whole lot of money and hire a lot of people to dig holes in the ground, or whatever, but when you do it by taking that money away from the private sector, you are killing those small businesses, which is a source of where you're generating a lot of these jobs. So I think that is where he was going.

Mr. AKIN. I think they call them subprime jobs now, but go ahead, Congressman.

Mr. AKIN. Isn't that something? Well, you are an energetic Congresswoman from an energetic State. And it's encouraging to hear that we do have those supplies of energy here. It is ironic, I think, that when you take a look back at the history of the Department of Energy, it was created so that America could be energy independent. And they have added many, many jobs to the Department of Energy, and yet we have become more and more dependent on foreign energy. And if we had more people like you in this Congress, I think that would change, and we would see that we would be getting back to good old American energy of a lot of different types. And we would let the marketplace, and not the government, make the choices as to which type you are going to use in each State. My good friend from Georgia, Congressman Broun.

Mr. AKIN. Let me just stop you there because what you said is very, very important. You are finding sources of natural gas--one of the cleanest burning fuels that we know, in terms of hydrocarbon-type fuels anyway--and you are finding that, which is making it so that you have plenty of jobs in Wyoming, you are not doing it with a lot of government help, and yet the government is going to try to create policies to make us more dependent on foreign energy. What would that be? I would suppose that one way to do that would be to tax your natural gas, because if that's taxed, then the foreigners have a better chance of getting business here. Is that where you're going?

Mr. AKIN. Well, wait just a minute. You're talking about we're creating jobs and wealth and all this, and the government is not doing it? Oh, my goodness. That's a novel idea; the government is not coming in and telling you how to run everything.

Mr. AKIN. You are absolutely right. And we have seen other examples of it; the decision in Connecticut where some local municipality decided to trample the Fifth Amendment, just walk right in and take somebody's private home in order to make a strip mall so they could tax the strip mall. And the Supreme Court jumped to the defense of the local government saying, that's just fine. And they just ignored the Fifth Amendment. And so we see this continuously growing government. And if you take a look at where we are spending money, it is just absolutely amazing. And here is an example. This is a town that is supposedly almost bankrupt-- I think it's Pawtucket, Rhode Island, if I remember right. The city on the verge of bankruptcy spends $550,000 in stimulus money for a skateboard park. Now, what in the world is the Federal Government doing with bicycle racks in D.C. in million-dollar neighborhoods, skateboard parks somewhere else. We're putting it all in here and claiming somehow it's going to make unemployment better, and yet the numbers are going nuts. The President, it seems--what's going on with the White House Press Corps? He claims they've just created 150,000 jobs, and yet you see the data going, we're already at 9.7 percent. And it's my understanding, when you jump to the next big tax we're talking about, they want to be like Spain. And Spain has the enviable 17.5 percent unemployment. Is that where we're going? How long is this going to go before the American public says enough already; it's time to change this big spending? If you want to see this thing graphically, this is a little bit chilling. This is historic budget imbalance. These are the different years of the Presidents. These years over here are President Bush. And those of us here that are Republicans, we didn't like the fact that President Bush was spending too much money. This is deficit spending. This is a budget imbalance. But take a look. When we were kids, didn't you have to go--what was it, first grade, what thing doesn't fit the pattern? Take a look at this year. Take a look at this budget imbalance that we're talking about. You think that's not going to affect jobs? You don't think that means the government is going to get its nose into all kinds of people's business? That's what we're concerned about. I would like to go to my good friend, Congresswoman Lummis from Wyoming. You know, the thing I like about Wyoming and the Western States? You have a sense of freedom and a little bit of a sense of property ownership and you have a sense of small business. And I appreciate that perspective. Please join our conversation.

Mr. AKIN. Well, I just appreciate the lady's passion and strong support for the concept of freedom. You know, what we're really talking about here is, what is the job of the government? And we have come to a point where we have actually elected people who have forgotten this basic concept, and that is, the government that can give you anything you want can also take away everything from you, including your freedom. And that is the great danger of this insidious creeping bureaucracy where the Government inserts itself into all kinds of different businesses. The Founders would have been outraged at what you've just described. And even people from not so many generations before us would say, that is impossible, that could never happen in America.

Mr. AKIN. That's really quite a summary of where we are. What we're getting at is this disease that struck the Washington area just one year or two ago. It's bailout fever, you know. And we got into this idea that we're going to bail everybody out--at least if you're big and important. If you're a small business, you're going to go bankrupt. If you're a car dealership, you go bankrupt and you lose $15 million in one day. But we're going to bail out all of these, and in the process, what's going on in unemployment? Is this nationalizing of businesses such a good idea? I think there are a lot of people having some very extreme second thoughts. This was not going to happen if we voted for that great big porkulus bill. I'm on the Armed Service Committee. When you say $787 billion, that's more than my paycheck. I tried to figure out how much money is that. And the biggest thing we deal with in any committee is aircraft carriers. These are big things. If you ever get on an aircraft carrier, you could play a game of football on the deck of one. They're really big, and they cost a ton of money. We have 11 in our total fleet. They cost about $3 billion a piece. So if you take a look at what happened to us in the first 5 weeks after we've been told that President Bush is spending way too much money, we put this bill in place--this was the trimmed-down version--on this floor we voted for $870-something billion. That would be over 250 aircraft carriers anchored end-to-end. I couldn't even imagine. You could make a highway across them. That's how much money that's in this package alone. That's not the Wall Street bailout, and that's not this appropriations bill that's full of goods. That's not this international monetary bailout that they're talking about doing where we're going to take defense money and give it to foreign countries, put it in a fund so that Chavez and the Iranians and other people can take defense money out of the United States away from our taxpayers so that they can fund their governments, and we're talking about doing that. We're wondering why in the world do we have this unemployment. I think we're making some big mistakes economically. I would like to jump back over to my very good friend Congresswoman Bachmann who, by the way, is a great articulator of free enterprise principles and does a wonderful credit to Minnesota. We're delighted that you're here, and please chip in and join in.

Mr. AKIN. That's the bottom line. I think that's what's gotten us staying here this evening talking about this subject. This is critical. This is a very significant problem. I would like to jump back to my friend from Iowa, Congressman King, a gentleman who has run his own private business for many years before he came to Congress, knows a little bit about small business, knows a little bit about taxation and red tape. And he also understands what some of these massive government spending programs in the last year, what these are liable to do in terms of effects on our economy.

Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, what I'm hearing you say is--you're a medical doctor. You're not claiming to be some economic expert. You're saying common sense says that this 9.7 percent unemployment that we got right now is not the end of this problem and that the idea of the tremendous level of spending that we're seeing is not going to help. You're agreeing with Henry Morgenthau from 1939 that all of this spending is not going to make this any better. And what's more, a lot of that spending is going to result in more unemployment rather than less. Is that the bottom line of what you're getting at?

Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, what you're doing is making a tremendously important connection. And I think a lot of people do get that impression that all of the jobs in America are General Motors or General Electric or Mobile Oil or whatever it happens to be. But in reality, as one of the most ranking members in small business, what you find is you define small business as about 500 employees or less. Small businesses create almost 80 percent of the new jobs in America. So what you're saying is exactly spot on to what all of our data shows, and if you're looking at 80 percent of the new jobs and you're looking here at an increasing level of unemployment, what you should be paying attention to is what are you doing for small business. And what you're talking about is we're doing something that we haven't learned from history. You're going to slap a great big tax on them to cover up all of this spending. And what's going to happen is you're going to dry up the potential of those new jobs that could come from small business. I appreciate you making that connection. And I'm going to just jump over to my good friend from Georgia, a medical doctor, but also somebody who has quite a fair amount of passion about freedom and about some of these economic issues as well, my good friend Dr. Broun from--is it the Atlanta area?